MLCM 98/01990 

1 _ I 

FT MEADE 
GenCol1 


L_ A 


United States Office of Air Quality EPA-453/R-94-075 

Environmental Protection Planning and Standards October, 1994 

Agency Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 


p PA A SCREENING ANALYSIS OF 
crM AMBIENT MONITORING DATA FOR 
THE URBAN AREA SOURCE 
PROGRAM 

FINAL REPORT 


































































A Screening Analysis of Ambient Monitoring 

Data Sets in Support of the 
Urban Area Source Program 

FINAL REPORT 


Prepared for: 

Mr. Vasu Kilaru 
Pollutant Assessment Branch 
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 


Prepared Under: 


EPA Contract No. 68-D3-0035 
Work Assignment No. 0-20 


September, 1994 


MLCM 78/01990 







DISCLAIMER 


This document has been reviewed by the Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (OAQPS, EPA). 

Approval of this report for publication does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect 
the views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of 
any trade names or commercial products constitute an endorsement or recommendation 
for use. 


n 


acknowledgements 


numerous^n^duaU^^^e'Tndfo^ W ° Uld P knowledge the contributions of 
efforts made the development of thUd' e ™™mental protection agencies whose 

should be credited with making substantivTconWbutioPs to 

mid'standards'°OAQPSx' QuaHty Pla "" in S 


111 


CONTENTS 


Page 

LIST OF TABLES . vii 

LIST OF FIGURES. ix 

ACRONYMS . xv 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. xvii 

I. 0 METHODOLOGY. 1 

1.1 Compilation of Ambient Monitoring Data Sets. 1 

1.2 Compilation of Ambient Data in a Standardized Spreadsheet Format ... 3 

1.3 Compilation of Cancer Risk Factors and Noncancer Health 

Benchmarks . 3 

1.4 Computation of Increased Cancer Risks. 6 

1.5 Computation of Noncancer Risks. 7 

1.6 Assumptions and Limitations . 8 

2.0 ATLANTA'S SUMMER OZONE PRECURSOR STUDY . 15 

3.0 BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA. 25 

4.0 BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT. 31 

5.0 BRIDGEPORT DIOXIN/FURAN STUDY. 39 

6.0 CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD . 43 

7.0 COLUMBUS, OHIO. 63 

8.0 LAKE MICHIGAN URBAN AIR TOXICS STUDY (LMUATS) . 91 

9.0 NONOCCUPATIONAL PESTICIDE EXPOSURE STUDY (NOPES). 97 

10.0 OHIO DIOXIN/FURAN STUDY. 101 

II. 0 SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT. 105 

12.0 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA DIOXIN/FURAN STUDY . 115 

13.0 SOUTHWEST OHIO . 119 

14.0 STATEN ISLAND/NEW JERSEY URBAN AIR TOXICS ASSESSMENT 

PROJECT. 137 

15.0 TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION . 157 


v 



























16.0 URBAN AIR TOXICS MONITORING PROGRAM 

REFERENCES. 

APPENDIX A. 

APPENDIX B. 

APPENDIX C. 


. . 185 
. . 211 
. . . A-l 
. . . B-l 
. . . C-l 


vi 







LIST OF TABLES 


Number Page 

ES-1. Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant for each Study.xxi 

ES-2. Average Cancer Risk Ranking by Pollutant for each Study.xxiii 

ES-3. Hazard Quotient Summary by Study for Pollutants with Available 

Inhalation Reference Concentrations . xxv 

ES-4. Hazard Quotient Summary by Study for Pollutants with Available 

Preliminary Evaluation Concentrations . xxix 

ES-5. Pollutants Demonstrating Exceedances of Noncancer Health 

Benchmarks and their Associated Method Detection Level by Study.xxxiii 

1-1. U.S. Cities that have Participated in the UATMP . 2 

1-2. Weight of Evidence (WOE) Classification and Available Inhalation Unit 

Risk (IUR) Estimates for HAPs . 11 

1- 3. Available Reference Concentrations (RfCs) and Preliminary Evaluation 

Concentrations (PECs) for HAPs . 13 

2- 1. Atlanta Cancer Risk by Site and Pollutant. 17 

2-2. Atlanta Cancer Risk Ranking by Site and Pollutant. 17 

2- 3. Atlanta Hazard Quotient by Site and Pollutant. 23 

3- 1. Baton Rouge Hazard Quotient by Pollutant. 29 

4- 1. BAAQMD Cancer Risk by Site and Pollutant. 33 

4-2. BAAQMD Cancer Risk Rank by Site and Pollutant . 34 

4- 3. BAAQMD Hazard Quotient by Site and Pollutant . 38 

5- 1. Bridgeport Cancer Risk by Dioxin and Furan Congener. 41 

6- 1. CARB Cancer Risk by Site and Pollutant. 45 

6-2. CARB Cancer Risk Ranking by Site and Pollutant. 47 

6- 3. CARB Hazard Quotient by Site and Pollutant . 60 

7- 1. Columbus Cancer Risk by Site and Pollutant. 66 

7-2. Columbus Cancer Risk Ranking by Site and Pollutant. 67 

7- 3. Columbus Hazard Quotient by Site and Pollutant . 90 

8- 1. Lake Michigan Hazard Quotient by Site and Pollutant . 96 

9- 1. NOPES Cancer Risk by Site and Pollutant. 99 

9- 2. NOPES Cancer Risk Ranking by Site and Pollutant. 99 

10- 1. Ohio Cancer Risk by Site and Pollutant. 103 

11- 1. SCAQMD Cancer Risk by Site and Pollutant. 107 

11-2. SCAQMD Cancer Risk Rank by Site and Pollutant . 107 

11- 3. SCAQMD Hazard Quotient by Site and Pollutant . 114 

12- 1. Southern California Study-wide Cancer Risk by Dioxin and Furan 

Congener. 117 

13- 1. South West Ohio Cancer Risk by Site and Pollutant . 121 

13-2. South West Ohio Cancer Risk Ranking by Site and Pollutant . 121 

13- 3. South West Ohio Hazard Quotient by Site and Pollutant. 135 

14- 1. Staten Island Cancer Risk by Site and Pollutant.; • • • 140 

14-2. Staten Island Cancer Risk Ranking by Site and Pollutant. 141 

14- 3. Staten Island Hazard Quotient by Site and Pollutant . 156 

15- 1. TNRCC Cancer Risk by Site and Pollutant . 159 

15-2. TNRCC Cancer Risk Ranking by Site and Pollutant . 160 

15-3. TNRCC Hazard Quotient by Site and Pollutant. 183 

vii 











































16-1. 

16-2. 

16-3. 

A-l. 

A-2. 

A-3. 

A-4. 

B-l. 


UATMP Cancer Risk by Site and Pollutant 

£ ancer Risk Ranking by Site and Pollutant . .* * .* .* * ‘ ‘ ‘ ’ 
UATMP Hazard Quotient by Site and Pollutant 

Summary of Pollutants Included in Ambient Monitoring Programs * 

Monitoring 1 Programs ^ *** . P "^ “ ***»* 

Sample Spreadsheet of Summary Statistics for SCAQMD 

Study antS M ° nit0red and Corres ponding Method Detection Level by 

I^foml^ 8 ™ th Available Cancer and Noncancer Health Effects ’ 


188 

190 

209 

A-3 


. A-8 
. A-9 


. . . A-ll 
. . . . B-3 


vm 










LIST OF FIGURES 


Number Page 

2-1. Cancer Risk by Site and Pollutant for the Atlanta Study. 16 

2-2. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Percentiles for Acetaldehyde . 18 

2-3. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Percentiles for Ethylbenzene . 19 

2-4. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Percentiles for n-Hexane . 20 

2-5. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Percentiles for Styrene. 21 

2- 6. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Percentiles for m/p-Xylene . 22 

3- 1. Baton Rouge Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant. 26 

3-2. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Percentiles for Ethylbenzene, 

Hexane, and Toluene. 27 

3- 3. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Percentiles for Xylene Isomers and 

Cumene. 28 

4- 1. Cancer Risk by Site and Pollutant for the BAAQMD Study . 32 

4-2. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Percentiles for Ethylene Dibromide . 35 

4-3. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Percentiles for Toluene . 36 

4- 4. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Percentiles for Methyl Chloroform . 37 

5- 1. Aggregate Cancer Risk by Pollutant for the Bridgeport Study . 40 

6- 1. Cancer Risk by Site and Pollutant for the CARB Study . 44 

6-2. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Acetaldehyde. 49 

6-3. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Ethyl benzene. 50 

6-4. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Ethylene dibromide. 51 

6-5. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for p-Dichlorobenzene . 52 

6-6. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Styrene. 53 

6-7. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Toluene. 54 

6-8. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Chlorobenzene. 55 

6-9. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for m-Xylene. 56 

6-10. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Methyl Chloroform. 57 

6-11. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for o-Xylene. 58 

6- 12. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for p-Xylene. 59 

7- 1. Cancer Risk by Site and Pollutant for the Columbus Study . 65 

7-2. NAAQS and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Lead. 68 

7-3. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene. 69 

7-4. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for 1,2-Dibromoethane . 70 

7-5. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for 1,2-Dichloropropane . 71 

7-6. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for 3-Chloropropene . 72 

7-7. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Acetaldehyde. 73 

7-8. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Acrolein. 74 

7-9. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Ethyl benzene. 75 

7-10. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Ethyl chloride. 76 

7-11. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Manganese. 77 

7-12. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Methyl bromide. 78 

7-13. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for p-Dichlorobenzene. 79 

7-14. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Styrene. 80 

7-15. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Toluene. 81 

7-16. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for 1,1,1-Trichloroethane. 82 

7-17. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for 1,1-Dichloroethane. 83 


IX 















































7-18. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Benzyl chloride. 84 

7-19. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Chlorine. 85 

7-20. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Chlorobenzene. 86 

7-21. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for m/p-Xylene. 87 

7-22. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for o-Xylene. 88 

7- 23. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Propanal . 89 

8- 1. Cancer Risk by Site and Pollutant for the Lake Michigan Study . 92 

8-2. NAAQS and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Lead. 93 

8-3. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Manganese . 94 

8- 4. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Chlorine. 95 

9- 1. Cancer Risk by Site and Pollutant for the NOPES Study. 98 

9- 2. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Dichlorvos. 100 

10- 1. Cancer Risk by Site and Pollutant for the Ohio Study . 102 

11- 1. Cancer Risk by Site and Pollutant for the SCAQMD Study . 106 

11-2. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Percentiles for 1,2-Dibromomethane . . . 108 

11-3. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Percentiles for Acetaldehyde . 109 

11-4. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Percentiles for Toluene . 110 

11-5. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Percentiles for 1,1,1-Trichloroethane ... Ill 

11-6. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Percentiles for m/p-Xylene . 112 

11- 7. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Percentiles for o-Xylene . 113 

12- 1. Cancer Risk by Pollutant for the Southern California Study. 116 

13- 1. Cancer Risk by Site and Pollutant for the South West Ohio Study. 120 

13-2. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Mean for Chloroethane . 122 

13-3. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Mean for Ethyl benzene. 123 

13-4. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Mean for Hexane. 124 

13-5. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Mean for p-Dichlorobenzene. 125 

13-6. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Mean for Styrene. 126 

13-7. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Mean for Toluene. 127 

13-8. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Mean for 1,1,1-Trichloroethane. 128 

13-9. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Mean for Carbon Disulfide . 129 

13-10. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Mean for Chlorobenzene. 130 

13-11. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Mean for Cumene. 131 

13-12. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Mean for m/p-Xylene. 132 

13-13. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Mean for o-Xylene. 133 

13- 14. PEC (1,1-Dichloroethane, Benzyl chloride) and RfC (Bromomethane, 

Chloroprene) and Ambient Monitoring Data Mean at Carthage. 134 

14- 1. Cancer Risk by Site and Pollutant for the Staten Island Study . 139 

14-2. NAAQS and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Lead. 142 

14-3. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Ethyl benzene. 143 

14-4. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Hexane. 144 

14-5. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Manganese . 145 

14-6. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Mercury . 146 

14-7. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for p-Dichlorobenzene. 147 

14-8. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Styrene. 148 

14-9. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Toluene. 149 

14-10. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for 1,1,1-Trichloroethane .... 150 

14-11. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for 1,1-Dichloroethane. 151 

14-12. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Chlorobenzene. 152 

14-13. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Cobalt . 153 


x 















































14-14. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for m/p-Xylene. 154 

14- 15. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for o-Xylene. 155 

15- 1. Cancer Risk by Site and Pollutant for the TNRCC Study. 158 

15-2. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for 1,2-Dichloropropane . 161 

15-3. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for 2-Butanone. 162 

15-4. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Acetaldehyde. 163 

15-5. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Acrylonitrile . 164 

15-6. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Bromomethane. 165 

15-7. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Chloroethane. 166 

15-8. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Ethyl benzene. 167 

15-9. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Iodomethane. 168 

15-10. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Methyl tert-butyl ether . . . 169 

15-11. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for p-Dichlorobenzene. 170 

15-12. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Styrene. 171 

15-13. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Toluene. 172 

15-14. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Vinyl bromide. 173 

15-15. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for 1,1,1-Trichloroethane .... 174 

15-16. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for 1,1-Dichloroethane. 175 

15-17. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Acetonitrile . 176 

15-18. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Chlorobenzene. 177 

15-19. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Cumene. 178 

15-20. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for m/p-Xylene. 179 

15-21. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Methanol. 180 

15-22. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Methylisobutylketone .... 181 

15- 23. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for o-Xylene. 182 

16- 1. Cancer Risk by Site and Pollutant for the UATMP Study. 187 

16-2. NAAQS and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Lead. 192 

16-3. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for 1,2-Dichloropropane . 193 

16-4. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Acetaldehyde. 194 

16-5. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Acetaldehyde-1988 . 195 

16-6. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Acrolein-1988 . 196 

16-7. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Bromomethane . 197 

16-8. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Chloroethane. 198 

16-9. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Chloroprene. 199 

16-10. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Ethyl benzene. 200 

16-11. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Manganese . 201 

16-12. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for p-Dichlorobenzene. 202 

16-13. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Toluene. 203 

16-14. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for 1,1,1-Trichloroethane .... 204 

16-15. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for 1,1-Dichloroethane. 205 

16-16. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Chlorobenzene. 206 

16-17. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Cobalt . 207 

16-18. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for m/p-Xylene. 208 

C2-1. DeKalb Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant.C-2 

C2-2. Ft. McPh. Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant.C-3 

C2-3. Georgia Tech Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant .C-4 

C2-4. M. L. King Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant .C-5 

C2-5. Mars Hill Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant .C-6 

C2-6. Tucker Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant .C-7 


xi 















































C4-1. Antioch Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant.C-8 

C4-2. Concord Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant .C-9 

C4-3. Fort Cronkhite Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant .C-10 

C4-4. Fremont Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant.C-ll 

C4-5. Livermore Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant.C-12 

C4-6. Martinez Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant.C-13 

C4-7. Mountain View Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant ..C-14 

C4-8. Napa Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant .C-15 

C4-9. Oakland Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant.C-16 

C4-10. Pittsburg Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant .C-17 

C4-11. Redwood City Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant.C-18 

C4-12. Richmond/7th St Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant.C-19 

C4-13. Richmond/13th St Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant.C-20 

C4-14. San Francisco Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant.C-21 

C4-15. San Jose - 4th St. Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant.C-22 

C4-16. San Jose - WSC Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant .C-23 

C4-17. San Leandro/Fairmont Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant.C-24 

C4-18. San Leandro/Thornton Ave. Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant .C-25 

C4-19. San Rafael Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant .C-26 

C4-20. Santa Rosa Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant.C-27 

C4-21. Vallejo Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant .C-28 

C4-22. Walnut Creek Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant.C-29 

C6-1. Bakersfield Cancer Risk by Pollutant.C-30 

C6-2. Burbank Cancer Risk by Pollutant.C-31 

C6-3. Chico-Salem Cancer Risk by Pollutant.C-32 

C6-4. Chula Vista Cancer Risk by Pollutant .C-33 

C6-5. Citrus Heights Cancer Risk by Pollutant.C-34 

C6-6. Concord Cancer Risk by Pollutant .C-35 

C6-7. El Cajon Cancer Risk by Pollutant. C-36 

C6-8. El Monte Cancer Risk by Pollutant .C-37 

C6-9. Fremont Cancer Risk by Pollutant.C-38 

C6-10. Fresno - First St. Cancer Risk by Pollutant .C-39 

C6-11. Fresno - Olive Cancer Risk by Pollutant.C-40 

C6-12. Los Angeles Cancer Risk by Pollutant .C-41 

C6-13. Merced Cancer Risk by Pollutant.C-42 

C6-14. Modesto - 14th Street Cancer Risk by Pollutant.C-43 

C6-15. Modesto - (Courthouse and Oakdale) Cancer Risk by Pollutant .C-44 

C6-16. North Long Beach Cancer Risk by Pollutant .C-45 

C6-17. Richmond Cancer Risk by Pollutant.C-46 

C6-18. Rubidoux Cancer Risk by Pollutant .C-47 

C6-19. San Francisco - Arkansas Cancer Risk by Pollutant.C-48 

C6-20. San Jose Cancer Risk by Pollutant.C-49 

C6-21. Santa Barbara - Carrillo Cancer Risk by Pollutant.C-50 

C6-22. Simi Valley - Cochran Cancer Risk by Pollutant.C-51 

C6-23. Stockton Cancer Risk by Pollutant.C-52 

C6-24. Upland Cancer Risk by Pollutant.C-53 

C7-1. Site One Cancer Risk by Pollutant.C-54 

C7-2. Site Two Cancer Risk by Pollutant.C-55 

C7-3. Site Three Cancer Risk by Pollutant .C-56 


• • 
Xll 



















































C7-4. Site Four Cancer Risk by Pollutant .C-57 

C7-5. Site Five Cancer Risk by Pollutant.C-58 

C7-6. Site Six Cancer Risk by Pollutant .C-59 

Cl 1-1. Anaheim Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant.C-60 

Cll-2. Azusa Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant.C-61 

Cl 1-3. Burbank Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant.C-62 

Cl 1-4. Hawthorne Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant.C-63 

Cl 1-5. Pico Rivera Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant.C-64 

C13-1. Carthage Cancer Risk by Pollutant .C-65 

C13-2. Lower Price Hill Cancer Risk by Pollutant.C-66 

C13-3. Winton Place State Cancer Risk by Pollutant. C-67 

C14-1. Bayley Seton Cancer Risk by Pollutant .C-68 

C14-2. Carteret Cancer Risk by Pollutant.C-69 

C14-3. Dongan Cancer Risk by Pollutant .C-70 

C14-4. Elizabeth Cancer Risk by Pollutant.C-71 

C14-5. Eltingville Cancer Risk by Pollutant .C-72 

C14-6. Great Kills Cancer Risk by Pollutant.C-73 

C14-7. Piscataway Cancer Risk by Pollutant.C-74 

C14-8. Port Richmond Cancer Risk by Pollutant.C-75 

C14-9. PS 26, Travis Cancer Risk by Pollutant.C-76 

C14-10. Pump Station Cancer Risk by Pollutant.C-77 

C14-11. Sewaren Cancer Risk by Pollutant.C-78 

C14-12. Susan Wagner HS Cancer Risk by Pollutant .C-79 

C14-13. Tottenville Cancer Risk by Pollutant .C-80 

C15-1. Site #12 Cancer Risk by Pollutant.C-81 

C15-2. Site #100 Cancer Risk by Pollutant.C-82 

C15-3. Site #102 Cancer Risk by Pollutant.C-83 

C15-4. Site #801 Cancer Risk by Pollutant .C-84 

C15-5. Site #803 Cancer Risk by Pollutant .C-85 

C15-6. Site #804 Cancer Risk by Pollutant .C-86 

C15-7. Site #807 Cancer Risk by Pollutant.C-87 

C15-8. Site #808 Cancer Risk by Pollutant .C-88 

C15-9. Site #815 Cancer Risk by Pollutant .C-89 

C15-10. Site #900 Cancer Risk by Pollutant .C-90 

C15-11. Site #901 Cancer Risk by Pollutant.C-91 

C15-12. Site #2008 Cancer Risk by Pollutant .C-92 

C16-1. Atlanta, GA Cancer Risk by Pollutant.C-93 

C16-2. Baton Rouge, LA Cancer Risk by Pollutant .C-94 

C16-3. Birmingham, AL Cancer Risk by Pollutant .C-95 

C16-4. Burlington, VT Cancer Risk by Pollutant.C-96 

C16-5. Camden, NJ Cancer Risk by Pollutant.C-97 

C16-6. Cleveland, OH Cancer Risk by Pollutant .C-98 

C16-7. Chicago, IL (C4IL) Cancer Risk by Pollutant.C-99 

C16-8. Dallas, TX Cancer Risk by Pollutant .C-100 

C16-9. Dearborn, MI Cancer Risk by Pollutant.C-101 

C16-10. Detroit, MI Cancer Risk by Pollutant.C-102 

C16-11. Fort Lauderdale, FL Cancer Risk by Pollutant.C-103 

C16-12. Hammond, IN Cancer Risk by Pollutant .C-104 

C16-13. Houston, TX (H1TX) Cancer Risk by Pollutant.C-105 


nil 



















































C16-14. 

C16-15. 

C16-16. 

C16-17. 

C16-18. 

C16-19. 

C16-20. 

C16-21. 

C16-22. 

C16-23. 

C16-24. 

C16-25. 

C16-26. 

C16-27. 

C16-28. 

C16-29. 

C16-30. 


Jacksonville, FL Cancer Risk by Pollutant 

Lansing, MI Cancer Risk by Pollutant. 

Louisville, KY Cancer Risk by Pollutant . 

Miami, FL Cancer Risk by Pollutant .. 

Midland, MI Cancer Risk by Pollutant ........ 

Orlando, FL Cancer Risk by Pollutant 
Pensicola, FL Cancer Risk by Pollutant 
Port Huron, MI Cancer Risk by Pollutant 
Portland, OR Cancer Risk by Pollutant 
Port Neches, TX Cancer Risk by Pollutant 
Sauget, IL Cancer Risk by Pollutant 
St. Louis, MO Cancer Risk by Pollutant 
Toledo, OH Cancer Risk by Pollutant 
Washington, DC Site #1 Cancer Risk by Pollutant 
Washington, DC Site #2 Cancer Risk by Pollutant 
Wichita, KS Site #1 Cancer Risk by Pollutant 
Wichita, KS Site #2 Cancer Risk by Pollutant 


. C-106 
. C-107 
C-108 
C-109 
C-110 
C-lll 
C-112 
C-113 
C-114 
C-115 
C-I16 
C-117 
C-118 
C-119 
C-120 
C-121 
C-122 


xiv 



















ACRONYMS 


AALG 

Ambient Air Level Goal 

AREAL 

Atmospheric Research and Exposure Assessment Laboratory 

BAAQMD 

Bay Area Air Quality Management District 

CARB 

California Air Resources Board 

CRAVE 

Carcinogen Risk Assessment Verification Endeavor 

DNPH 

Dinitrophenylhydrazine 

ECD 

Electron Capture Detection 

EOM 

Extractable Organic Matter 

EPA 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

FID 

Flame Ionization Detector 

GC 

Gas Chromatography 

HAP 

Hazardous Air Pollutant 

HEAST 

Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables 

HPLC 

High Pressure Liquid Chromatography 

HQ 

Hazard Quotient 

IRIS 

Integrated Risk Information System 

IUR 

Inhalation Unit Risk 

LMUATS 

Lake Michigan Urban Air Toxics Study 

LOAEL 

Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level 

MDL 

Method Detection Limit 

MID 

Multiple Ion Detection 

MS 

Mass Spectrometry 

NAA 

Neutron Activation Analysis 

NAAQS 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

NOAEL 

No Observed Adverse Effect Level 

NOPES 

Nonoccupational Pesticide Exposure Study 

PAH 

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon 

PCB 

Polychlorinated Biphenyl 

PCDD 

Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxin 

PCDF 

Polychlorinated Dibenzofuran 

PEC 

Preliminary Evaluation Concentration 

PIXE 

Proton-induced X-ray Emission 

POM 

Polycyclic Organic Matter 

PUF 

Polyurethane Foam 

QA 

Quality Assurance 

RfC 

Inhalation Reference Concentration 

SCAQMD 

South Coast Air Quality Management District 

TNRCC 

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission 

UASP 

Urban Area Source Program 

UATMP 

Urban Air Toxics Monitoring Program 

VOC 

Volatile Organic Compound 

WOE 

Weight of Evidence 


xv 







































































EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 


Under Sections 112(c)(3) and 112(k) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 
(1990 Amendments), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is required to 
develop and implement a strategy to control emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) 
from categories of area sources. The term "area source" in the context of Section 112 
means, any stationary source or group of stationary sources located within a contiguous 
area and under common control, that emits, or has the potential to emit in the aggregate, 
less than 10 tons per year of any HAP or less than 25 tons per year of any combination of 
HAPs. Under the Urban Area Source Program (UASP), EPA must publish a national 
strategy by 1995 that identifies 30 or more HAPs presenting the greatest threat to public 
health in urban areas. Subsequently, EPA must implement this strategy by the year 
2000, promulgating emission standards for targeted area sources of these 30 or more 
HAPs. 

The 1990 Amendments clearly intend EPA to consider ambient monitoring data 
when selecting the 30 or more HAPs and developing the national strategy. Section 
112(k)(3) specifically states that EPA must consider the information collected pursuant to 
an ambient monitoring program conducted for a broad range of HAPs, including, but not 
limited to, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), pesticides, and products of incomplete 
combustion, in a representative number of urban locations. 

This report summarizes an effort to analyze a number of currently available ambient 
monitoring data sets for HAPs from various urban areas in the United States. 

Specifically, the data were obtained from 16 studies that were generally available and 
quality-assured, representing over 40 urban locations in the United States. The Toxics 
Air Monitoring System (TAMS) data base was not included in this report since it was 
comprehensively addressed in a prior report. Ambient air concentration data were 
available for 195 air contaminants, however, not all studies sampled and analyzed each of 
these pollutants. Moreover, the risk analysis focused exclusively on 93 HAPs for which 
health effects data were available. The following statistical parameters were calculated 
for each monitoring site within each study: 

• arithmetic and geometric means; 

• standard deviation; 

• maximum concentration; 

• 25, 50, 75, 90, 95 and 99th percentile concentrations; and 

• percentage of values above the method detection levels (MDLs). 

For each site within each study, a "long-term average concentration" was calculated 
for each HAP from all the reported data. When raw data were not available, the 
summary statistics reported by the author were used. Long-term averages were used 
because the cancer and noncancer health benchmarks 3 for most of the HAPs are based on 


“For this report, a health benchmark is a quantitative measure of toxicity. For carcinogens, the health benchmark are 
inhalation unit risk (IUR) factors. For noncancer effects, the health benchmarks are inhalation reference concentrations 
(RfCs) and preliminary evaluation concentrations (PECs). See Chapter 1 for further explanation of these health 
benchmarks. 


XVU 



kmg-tenychromc (i.e., lifetime) exposures to pollutants. In fact, none of the data sets 
u lhzed m this report spanned more than a few years, with some being limited to one or 
several seasons. Hence the temporal average concentrations calculated in this report can 
at best, only be considered as approximations of lifetime exposures from outdoor air at ’ 

shouldTelThfff 16 ' ^ StU< ! ieS Wlt , h , ’° nger durations and sampling frequencies 

Id yield better approximations of long-term mean concentrations for purposes of 

estimating chrome health effects. 

avo Values reported as below the MDLs were generally assigned 1/2 the MDL value for 
raging purposes. The resulting arithmetic average concentrations were then applied 

HqS nC0 H an ? C ^T 1C noncancer health benchmarks to estimate lifetime excess cancer 

tTis 6n a 00 ' 1 ? 31 ' 0 ! 1 ' h ? lth eff6CtS for each HAP- AH he alth benchmarks used in 

this anaiysis were developed under other efforts, and are summarized herein. Where 

Tnforni f* e c . eff ™! ta were ad °P ted preferentially from EPA’s Integrated Risk 

thfs^nnT p yS , ( R S): b ° waver ’ some n °n-IRIS health benchmarks were also used in 
n J • Prel ^ mi ^ a p r evaluation concentrations (PECs) for particular HAPs were 

b “ fr ? ma p report entitIed > Development of Interim Noncanrer Health 
r,ll„^.,^ re ! 1 ™ r>arY F ;r' Uat '° n Cancentrati on s for Scr eening Study of Hazardous Air 

c , Nobealtb benchmarks for acute toxicity were available for use in this study 

comnar^ ben ^ marks . become available, acute exposure health benchmarks could be 
mpared with the maximum or upper percentile concentrations from these monitoring 
studies, to estimate potential health risks from short-term exposures to ambient HAPs. 

,, r ^ anC , er nsks are estimated by multiplying the average pollutant concentration by 
r n u k f n tor - The result is a cancer potency-weighted ambient 

Xant, ?^ P ° llutan > which can be compared on a relative scale to other 
pollutants. This ranking procedure was used in the Integrated Environmental 

Management Project (IEMP) conducted in Baltimore, Maryland. 2 Using ambient air 

£vel "h 8 l 3ta and dlSperS10n modellin g results, rough estimates of cancer risk were 
developed. A recommendation was made by the Johns Hopkins Risk Assessment Review 

concenfra S t1on a s f Idvs poll “ .—nling to their cancer potency-weightTd amblent 
ncentrations. An advantage of this approach is that it avoids relying on highly 

uncertain exposure assumptions (e.g., continuous exposure for 70 year!), and fr does not 
incorporate population weighting factors. 

indoor-monitoring data in this report represent ambient (i.e., outside) air, and not 
indoor air or workplace air, or air in contaminated microenvironments (such as near 
gasoline pumps or within motor vehicles). No estimates of population risks (e g urban 
cancer incidence) are made because of uncertainties of the spatial representativeness of 
monitored values at sampling sites across urban areas. 

This report also assumes that certain metals present in the atmosphere appear in a 

renorttat^l^ T!' ^ W3S d ° ne because available measurement methods only 

or vaknc^stite me ™i mav maaSpresent “ a sample . and not the actual chemical form 
or valence state. This may result in an overestimation of the calculated risks for metals 

such as chromium or nickel, where the most toxic form of metal is assumed to be SSm 

were oniravaUabTe for th^eSf T?'/ 3 ' u the health benchmar ks for mercuiy 

were only available for the elemental form, which may result in an underestimation of 

actual risks since this may not be the most toxic form underestimation ot 


xviii 




The results of this study are summarized in Tables ES-1 through ES-4. Table ES-1 
presents the computed individual cancer risks for each HAP, averaged over all sites 
within each study. Table ES-2 rank orders the monitored HAPs by average individual 
cancer risk within each study. Tables ES-3 and ES-4 present the range of hazard 
quotients (HQs) within each study for HAPs with available inhalation reference 
concentrations (RfCs), and for HAPs with available preliminary evaluation concentrations 
(PECs), respectively. A hazard quotient is a ratio of the measured ambient concentration 
of a pollutant to the noncancer health benchmark concentration (see Section 1.5 for 
further explanation). Tables ES-3 and ES-4 also show the number and percent of 
observed concentrations exceeding a hazard quotient of unity (i.e., one). Hazard 
quotients above unity are an indication of potential health concern for noncancer 
endpoints. There are significant limitations and uncertainties associated with the results 
shown in Tables ES-1 through ES-4. Readers should exercise caution when interpreting 
the results (see Assumptions and Limitations discussed in Section 1.6). 

With respect to cancer risk, 1,3-butadiene possessed the highest estimated individual 
risk among pollutants in all four studies where monitored. Estimated cancer risks for 
benzene and formaldehyde also consistently ranked close to the top among the studies 
included in this report. Benzene is considered a known human carcinogen. 

Formaldehyde and 1,3-butadiene are considered probable carcinogens, but are currently 
being reassessed by EPA. This reassessment could result in new cancer risk estimates for 
these two HAPs. 

In regards to noncancer risk, the average ambient concentrations of acrolein 
exceeded the corresponding RfC in two studies: the UATMP and Columbus studies. The 
largest HQs computed in this report were for acrolein at the six sites in the Columbus 
study, with values ranging from 17.2 to 56.8. The pollutants 1,2-dibromoethane and 
manganese each exhibited exceedances of their noncancer health benchmarks (RfCs) in 
the SCAQMD study and the UATMP study, respectively. 

In six of the eight studies where m/p -xylene was monitored, average concentrations 
exceeded the PEC developed for mixtures of xylene isomers and individual xylene isomers. 
Concentrations of other isomers of xylene (m- and o -xylene) also exhibited exceedances of 
the health benchmark in several studies. Benzyl chloride also exceeded its corresponding 
PEC in the Columbus study and the Southwest Ohio study. However, because of the 
limited toxicity data available for benzyl chloride, there is substantial uncertainty in the 
PEC for benzyl chloride. Therefore, these exceedances are of questionable significance. 

Caution should be exercised when comparing average ambient concentrations with 
health benchmarks. An ideal situation would be where the benchmark is well above the 
MDL. In such a case there would be sufficient confidence in the relationship between 
monitored values (above or below the MDL) and the benchmark. Table ES-5 provides a 
summary of pollutants which exceeded their corresponding benchmark, as well as the 
analytical MDL for the study. A crucial check is to compare the MDL and the benchmark 
value with the percentage of monitored values above the MDL. If "nondetects" comprise a 
large percentage of the total number of monitored values, and the health benchmark is 
below the MDL, then the results may be biased high or low. For example, the resulting 
HQs for 1,2-dibromoethane from the SCAQMD may be artificially greater than 1 since the 
four sites reported 97.6 to 100 percent of the monitored values as nondetects. The HQs 


XIX 


for acrolein may also be affected by this MDL bias. Cancer risk estimates are also prone 
to this type of biasing (see Section 1.4 for further discussion of MDLs). 

Exceedances of PECs or RfCs do not necessarily indicate that there is a threat to 
public health. For each exceedance, the assessors need to consider the extent of 
exceedance, the toxicity data, uncertainty and other factors. 

Qualitative health effects data (e.g., weight of evidence, confidence in the RfC) were 
not directly considered in this analysis. However, qualitative information will be an 
important consideration in the development of the National UASP Strategy and in any 
related risk management decisions. 

The results of this report, in conjunction with other analyses of emission inventory 
information, toxicity data and source receptor modeling shall all be considered in 

determining the 30+ pollutants and formulating the EPA's National Urban Area Source 
Strategy. 


xx 


Table ES-1. Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant for each Study 1 



xxi 










































Table ES-1. Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant for each Study (cont.) 1 



XXII 










































Table ES-2. Average Cancer Risk Ranking by Pollutant for each Study 



xxi 11 






























Table ES-2. Average Cancer Risk Ranking by Pollutant for each Study (cent.) 



XXIV 










































Table ES-3. Hazard Quotient Summary by Study for Pollutants with Available Inhalation Reference Concentrations 



xxv 











































XXVI 


ether (MTBE) 







































Table ES-3. Hazard Quotient Summary by Study for Pollutants with Available Inhalation Reference Concentrations (cont.) 



XXVI1 


NOTES: BAAQMD=Bay Area Air Quality Management District, CARB=California Air Resources Board, NOPES=Nonoccupational Pesticide Exposure, Study, SCAQMD=South 
Coast Air Quality Management District, TNRCC=Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, UATMP=Urtan Air Toxics Monitoring Program 
See Assumptions and Limitations discussed in Section 1.6. 









































































































Table ES-4. Hazard Quotient Summary by Study for Pollutants with Available Preliminary Evaluation Concentrations 



xxix 















































with Available Preliminary Evaluation Concentrations (cont.) 



xxx 


















Table ES-4. Hazard Quotient Summary by Study for Pollutants with Available Preliminary Evaluation Concentrations (cont.) 



XXXI 


NOTES: BAAQMD=Bay Area Air Quality Management District, CARB=California Air Resources Board, NOPES=Nonoccupational Pesticide Exposure Study, SCAQMD=South 
Coast Air Quality Management District, TNRCC=Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, UATMP=Urban Air Toxics Monitoring Program 
See Assumptions and Limitations discussed in Section 1.6. 







































































































Table ES-5. Pollutants Demonstrating Exceedances of Noncancer Health 
Benchmarks and their Associated Method Detection Level by Study. 


Study 

Cas # 

Pollutant 

Method 
, Detection 
Level 

Reference 

Concentration 1 

Preliminary 

Evaluation 

Concentration 1 

ATLANTA 

1330207 

m/p-Xylene 

0.15 


1.38E+00 

CARB 

108383 

m-Xylene 

0.60 


1.38E+00 

95476 

o-Xylene 

0.10 


1.38E+00 

COLUMBUS 

100447 

Benzyl chloride 

NA 2 


4.25E-02 

107028 

Acrolein - 3 hour 

0.30 

8.72E-03 


SOUTH COAST 

106934 

1,2-dibromoethane 

0.10 

2.60E-02 


1330207 

m/p-Xylene 

1.0 


1.38E+00 

95476 

o-Xylene 

1.0 


1.38E+00 

SOUTHWEST OHIO 

100447 

Benzyl chloride 

NA 2 


4.25E-02 

1330207 

m/p-Xylene 

0.20 


1.38E+00 

STATEN ISLAND 

1330207 

m/p-Xylene 

0.02 


1.38E+00 

TACB 

1330207 

m/p-Xylene 

0.19 


1.38E+00 

95476 

o-Xylene 

0.10 


1.38E+00 

UATMP 

107028 

Acrolein - 1988 

0.01 

8.72E-03 


1330207 

m/p-Xylene 

0.02 


1.38E+00 

7439965 

Manganese 

NA 2 

4.00E-01 



1 All method detection levels, reference concentrations, and preliminary evaluation concentrations are 
expressed in parts per billion volume (ppbv), except the reference concentration for manganese, which 
is expressed in pg/cubic meter. 

2 NA = Not available. 


xxxm 



























































































. 










































■ 

' 






































































































1.0 METHODOLOGY 


1.1 Compilation of Ambient Monitoring Data Sets 

Ambient air monitoring data for HAPs were compiled and analyzed from the 
studies/geographical areas listed below. The number of monitoring sites included in each 
study is also indicated. 


Chapter Study Area Number 

____ of Sites 

2 Atlanta's Summer Ozone Precursor Study 6 

3 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 1 

4 Bay Area Air Quality Management District 22 

(BAAQMD) 

5 Bridgeport Dioxin/Furan Study 6 

6 California Ar Resources Board (CARB) 25 

7 Columbus, Ohio 6 

8 Lake Michigan Urban Ar Toxics Study 3 

(LMUATS) 

9 Nonoccupational Pesticide Exposure Study 2 

(NOPES) 

10 Ohio Dioxin/Furan Study 5 

11 South Coast Ar Quality Management District 5 

(SCAQMD) 

12 Southern California Dioxin/Furan Study 8 

13 Southwest Ohio 3 

14 Staten Island/New Jersey Urban Ar Toxics 13 

Assessment Project 

15 Texas Natural Resource Conservation 12 

Commission (TNRCC) 

16 Urban Ar Toxics Monitoring Program (UATMP) 30 


Many of these data sets represent a single urban area, however, several are broader in 
geographical scope. For example, the Lake Michigan Urban Air Toxics Study includes 
data collected at several monitoring sites within the lower Lake Michigan Basin. The 
UATMP data base is a multi-year collection of toxics monitoring data for a varying 
number of cities throughout the United States. The EPA's UATMP data collection 
program began in 1987, and in each subsequent year anywhere from 12 to 19 cities have 
participated in the program, as displayed in Table 1-1. 


1 



Table 1-1. U.S. Cities that have Participated in the UATMP 


1988 

Burlington, VT 
Atlanta, GA 
Birmingham, AL 
Louisville, KY 
Jacksonville, FL 
Miami, FL 
Chicago, IL 2 
Cleveland, OH 
Detroit, MI 
Dearborn, MI 
E. St. Louis (Sauget, IL) 
Hammond, IN 
Port Huron, MI 
Midland, MI 
East Lansing, MI 
Dallas, TX 
Houston, TX 
Baton Rouge, LA 
Portland, OR 


^Two UATMP monitoring sites were located in these cities. 

2 he site location for Chicago was changed from 1988 to 1989. However, readings taken at the two 
separate sites were averaged together. 


1989 

Camden, NJ 
Washington, DC 1 
Miami, FL 
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 
Pensacola, FL 
Chicago, IL 2 
Sauget, IL 
Dallas, TX 
Houston, TX 
Baton Rouge, LA 
Wichita, KS 1 
St. Louis, MO 


1990 

Camden, NJ 
Washington, DC 1 
Orlando, FL 
Pensacola, FL 
Chicago, IL 
Sauget, IL 
Toledo, OH 
Houston, TX 
Baton Rouge, LA 
Port Neches, TX 
Wichita, KS 1 
St. Louis, MO 


2 










Tables A-l and A-2 in Appendix A provide a list of the studies and the pollutants 
monitored in each study. The studies compiled for this report vary considerably in 
pollutant coverage and in the methods used for sampling and analysis. Because of 
differences in measurement methods and quality assurance (QA), the results of the 
various studies are kept distinct from one another in this report. 

Many pollutants measured in these studies are not HAPs (i.e., they are not 
specifically listed under Section 112(b) of the CAAA of 1990). Conversely, not all HAPs 
are represented by these studies, in part because of the lack of cost effective measurement 
methods sensitive enough to detect many HAPs at the low levels typically encountered in 
ambient air. 

1.2 Compilation of Ambient Data in a Standardized Spreadsheet Format 

The following statistical parameters were calculated for each ambient monitoring 
site within each study: 

• arithmetic and geometric means; 

• standard deviation; 

• maximum concentration; 

• 25, 50, 75, 90, 95 and 99th percentile concentrations; and 

• percentage of values above the method detection levels (MDLs). 

The long-term averages for each site were constructed by aggregating all available 
data for a given site. The resulting averaging periods differed since each study varied in 
the length of time that monitoring was performed. The main reason for this approach is 
because the health benchmarks (both cancer and noncancer) are chronic values (i.e., 
70-year lifetime exposure). Values reported as below the MDLs were generally assigned 
the value of 1/2 the MDL concentration, for averaging purposes. This is common practice 
in the treatment of nondetected values for statistical purposes. 3 

Table A-3 in Appendix A shows a sample spreadsheet compiled for several 
monitoring sites included in the SCAQMD study. (The actual spreadsheet is compiled 
using Microsoft's Excel ™ software.) In addition to the statistical parameters described 
above, the spreadsheets include the site name, pollutant name, Chemical Abstract 
Services (CAS) number, number of samples, and the value of 1/2 of the MDL. 

1.3 Compilation of Cancer Risk Factors and Noncancer Health Benchmarks 

In order to determine potential public health threats from ambient levels of HAPs, 
either in terms of levels of risk or just in terms of relative rankings, the arithmetic 
average concentrations must be "married" with health benchmarks^ This is because 
pollutant concentrations, by themselves, cannot be meaningfully compared without 
factoring in the relative toxicity of each pollutant. For carcinogenic (i.e., "nonthreshold") 
pollutants, health benchmarks are typically expressed as some increased risk of 


b For this report, a health benchmark is a quantitative measure of toxicity. For carcinogens, the health benchmark are 
inhalation unit risk (IUR) factors. For noncancer effects, the health benchmarks are inhalation reference concentrations 
(RfCs) and preliminary evaluation concentrations (PECs). 


3 




developing cancer per a unit measure of exposure. Health benchmarks for noncancer 
pollutants are typically expressed as a concentration below which no adverse health effect 
is expected to occur. It should be noted that Section 112(k) does not authorize EPA to 
consider ecological effects as an endpoint for determining the 30 HAPs to include in the 

urban area source national strategy. Hence, no "eco" effect benchmarks were compiled in 
this project. 


Tables 1-2 and 1-3, respectively, show the cancer and noncancer health benchmarks 
compiled and used in this analysis. Supplementary information on HAPs with cancer and 
noncancer health effects, including critical health effects and weight of evidence, is 
provided in Appendix B, Table B-l. Detailed health effects data are contained in the 
- references - available, benchmarks were preferentially taken directly from 

j 1 ?^ a ^, d Rlsk Information System (IRIS), a clearinghouse of EPA-verified health 
effects data. The IRIS contains toxicological information on approximately 500 

^ nd 1S updated monthl y to reflect currently available toxicological information. 
Lhe EPAs Carcinogen Risk Assessment Verification Endeavor (CRAVE) Workgroup 
reviews cancer data and estimates carcinogenic potency of chemicals on a regular basis for 
input into IRIS. These risk estimates (i.e., inhalation unit risk estimates and oral unit 
risk estimates) represent general EPA consensus with respect to a chemical's potency. 

*or health effects other than cancer (i.e., noncancer health effects), the IRIS data base 
contains inhalation reference concentrations (RfCs). An RfC is an estimated concentration 

? air> b ? l0W Which 1S not ex P ected t0 cau se any adverse health effects. The 
EPAs RfC workgroup has the responsibility of developing RfCs. The workgroup studies 
ecological data, and if the data are adequate, the workgroup establishes an RfC as an 
EPA-venfied noncancer benchmark. The IRIS RfCs are considered EPA-verified. 


Included with the 46 carcinogens in Table 1-2 are the inhalation unit risk (IUR) 
factors and the cancer weight of evidence (WOE) for each IUR. The IUR is a quantitative 
estimate of the mcreased probability of developing cancer from a 70-year continuous 
exposure to a concentration of one microgram (pg) of a given pollutant per cubic meter 

h J °I air , In i ler f nt 1 \ th ™V? S used in the calculations of this report is the assumption 
that an individual weighs 70 kilograms (kg), and that the rate of inhalation is 20 m 3 /day 

over a 70-year penod. The IUR is typically derived by performing a low dose 
extrapolation of experimental data assuming linearity in the low dose range. The IUR is 
usually based on a 95th percentile upper-bound of the dose-response data. For more 
information, refer to EPA's Cancer Risk Assessment Ouirielines of iflSfi 5 

In addition, CRAVE developed a classification system to qualify compounds 
according to the evidence of carcinogenicity. After extensive review of available 

wnp° f | glCa c scl . entlfic > ind carcinogenic information for a compound, CRAVE assigns a 
WOE classification to the chemical. The WOE is the degree of confidence that a pollutant 
a human carcinogen. Currently, the following groups constitute the WOE system: 


4 



Group A 


known human carcinogen (based on human epidemiological 
evidence) 


Group B 
B1 

B2 


probable human carcinogen 

sufficient evidence from animal studies and limited evidence from 
human studies 

sufficient evidence from animal studies, but inadequate evidence 
from human studies 


Group C 


possible human carcinogen, some evidence, but data is inconclusive 


Group D 


— not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity (based on lack of 
evidence) 


Group E 


evidence that pollutant is not carcinogenic in humans 


Noncancer health benchmarks in Table 1-3 are expressed either in terms of RfGs, 
where available from IRIS, or in terms of preliminary evaluation concentrations (PECs), 
which are non-verified, interim benchmarks used for screening purposes in this study. An 
RfC is an estimate of a daily inhalation exposure to an air contaminant over a period of 
70 years that is likely to be without appreciable risk of adverse effects. As such, it is not 
a value or concentration at which some adverse effect is expected. Most of the RfCs and 
PECs are based on health effects endpoints that typically result from long-term 
exposures. However, there are a few RfCs that are based on health effects endpoints (e.g., 
developmental) that may occur after short term exposure. This could be an important 
consideration for ranking HAPs, and for risk management decisions. Inhalation reference 
concentrations are routinely established by EPA in IRIS, and serve as a tool to assess the 
potential noncancer concern associated with various concentrations of specific chemicals. 
Out of concern that IRIS (EPA-verified) RfCs are not available for many pollutants being 
measured in ambient air, PECs were developed for some pollutants to serve as interim, 
screening values specifically for this report. 


For more information on RfC derivation and methodology the reader is referred to 
Interim Methods for Development of Inhalation Reference Concentrations . 6 Additional 
information concerning RfCs for particular pollutants can be obtained from IRIS. For 
information on PEC methodology and PECs for particular HAPs, the reader is referred to 
a draft report entitled, Development of Interim Noncancer Health Effects Preliminary 
Evaluation Concentrations for Screening Study of Hazardous Air Pollutants (see 
reference 1). The PECs were developed using a methodology similar to that of RfCs. 
However, PECs are not equivalent to RfCs. For PECs, the minimum toxicological data 
requirements are less rigorous and there is typically greater uncertainty compared to 
RfCs. Also, the PECs have undergone only limited EPA peer-review. 

Reference concentrations are available for only 23 of the 195 pollutants for which 
ambient air concentration data were available. The RfC status for the remainder of the 
pollutants are either currently under review, determined non-verifiable, or have not been 
reviewed yet. Due to concern of potential noncancer health effects for chemicals with no 
RfCs, a parallel effort was undertaken to develop PECs. As mentioned above, these 
interim, non-verified EPA benchmarks are solely for the screening purposes of this study. 


5 






Most: of the PECs used for the purposes of this report have been developed by the EPA's 
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards’ Pollutant Assessment Branch. It should be 
noted that four of the PECs are based on non-verified RfCs obtained from EPA Health 
Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST), and Ambient Air Level Goals (AALGs) 
eveloped by Calabrese and Kenyon. 7 It is important to consider the basis for each PEC 
when assessing the potential health concerns for HAPs in this report. 

1.4 Computation of Increased Cancer Risks 


The estimates of cancer risk calculated in this report are of increased, or excess 
cancer risk to a hypothetical individual breathing ambient air, over a 70-year lifetime at 
levels monitored at each site or urban area in this report. These risk estimates are 
neither actual estimates of observed cancer incidence to populations within the urban 
areas wherein the ambient monitoring was performed, nor are they projections of risk to 
any particular individuals. Instead, these are pollutant-specific, point-specific estimates 
ot excess, lifetime individual cancer nsk calculated for relative ranking purposes only 
keeping m mind the assumptions and limitations in the data (discussed in Section 1.6). 


Each cancer risk estimate is associated only with a particular monitoring site or 
when appropriate, averaged across monitoring sites within an urban area. No attempt 
was made to compute population incidence because it was not known to what extent the 

^ T 8 ° f , HAPs m ™ ltore d at each site are representative of a larger spatial area, 
is type of analysis may be attempted subsequently in certain urban areas having 
numerous monitoring sites, based on new information correlating the spatial 
predictability of certain HAPs from single site observations — which will vary 
considerably among HAPs and with local geography.) 


a , Before calculating mcreased hfetime cancer risks, the units for the monitored values 
and cancer potency factors need to be consistent. Ambient levels are typically reported in 
parts per billion, by volume (ppbv) Concentrations in ppbv can be converted to 
micrograms per cubic meter (pg/m 3 ) by the following equation, so that the units are 

UmtS ° f thG IUR * The resultant number (the cancer risk estimate) is 


ppbv x 


M 

24.45 L 


V8 


m 


3 


Where: ppbv 

M 

24.45 L 
Ug/m 3 


parts per billion (dry, by volume) 
molecular weight of chemical 

volume of 1 mole of substance in gaseous state at 70° F 
and 1 ATM 

micrograms per cubic meter 


Particle-based pollutant concentrations are generally reported in pg/m 3 or other 
from 1 ppbv “ 38 nan0grams/cubic meter ("g/™ 3 ). and need no such conversion 


6 



An estimate of potential increased lifetime cancer risk for an individual exposed to 
the ambient concentration for 70 years is calculated by multiplying the average 
concentration in pg/m 3 by the inhalation unit risk estimate for that pollutant, using the 
following equation: 


Lifetime individual cancer risk = HAP average cone, (pg/m 3 ) x IUR, (1 /pg/m 3 ) 

The resulting value is a dimensionless risk probability of contracting cancer due to a 
lifetime inhalation exposure to a HAP. For example, 5.0E-06, or 5.0 x 10' 6 , is equivalent 
to a 5 in 1 million risk of contracting cancer. 

Caution should be exercised when interpreting the cancer risk estimates presented 
in this document. Since many of the measured values for some pollutants are below the 
MDL, the cancer risk estimates and rankings may be biased high or low. If a large 
percentage of the measured values are below the MDL, then the cancer risk estimates 
and cancer risk rankings (e.g., Tables ES-1 and ES-2) contain significant added 
uncertainty. This report is a screening analysis, as such it does not include an evaluation 
of the MDL bias on the cancer risk estimates, or the rankings. However, further 
examination of the MDLs and their impact on the risk estimates and rankings will be 
important considerations in any risk characterization or risk management decisions, or in 
any decisions regarding the development of the UASP National Strategy. 

1.5 Computation of Noncancer Risks 

Noncancer effects are generally acknowledged as being threshold in nature. This 
implies that a level exists below which exposure is not likely to result in adverse health 
effects. Noncancer risks are estimated by comparing an observed ambient concentration 
of a HAP with the noncancer health benchmark, preferably the RfC. Comparison between 
ambient air concentrations and reference concentrations is performed by converting the 
two concentrations to the same units (usually mg/m 3 ) and calculating the Hazard 
Quotient (HQ): 


Hq _ _ ambient concentration 

reference concentration (RfC,PEC) 

As such, the hazard quotient is simply a mathematical ratio of the long-term ambient 
concentration and the chronic noncancer health benchmark. An ambient concentration 
greater than the reference concentration (i.e., an HQ >1) constitutes an exceedance. The 
reader should note that the existence of an exceedance of an RfC does not necessarily 
mean that an adverse effect will occur. A brief explanation of the RfC methodology is 
provided here to help explain this point. 

First, existing toxicological data is reviewed to determine a No Observed Adverse 
Effects Level (NOAEL), and a Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL). The 
LOAEL is the lowest experimental exposure concentration at which an adverse noncancer 
health effect was observed. The NOAEL, on the other hand, is an exposure concentration 
at which no adverse health effect was observed. To calculate an RfC, typically a NOAEL 


7 






exSifon U ZT, am % faCt t rS to a “ 0Unt f0r sensitive subpopulations, animal to human 
uncart* nh?f’ f d than chronic (subchronic) experimental exposure. These 

mod f ! Ct0rS are usually ussigned an order of magnitude value of 10 Also 

that Smlo to Tooro 1 H d t0 ‘ n data ' The an RfC 

311S 110111 1U t0 100,000 times lower than a NOAEL. 

As mentioned earlier, PECs are also derived using a similar method Since HO= in 

Srsir * n ^ th * iz 2,2 

f v . ** ’ For I ^ APs where HQ <1, m many cases the EPA can reasonably conclude 

hat the corresponding HAP concentration is "safe" (i.e., no adverse no“er effect s 

ould result from the concentration). However, potential health effects cannot be 

'T !*»“ b “ d «■ rec.„S,“SILub. 

cictel v Kef Th , f the PEC ’ and value of the H Q ratio should be examined more 
■ y . °ra ruling out potential health concerns. Conversely, an HQ >1 is onlv an 

lamina? ^ for “ adverse health effect. In this sffuaton further 

J 1 " warranted to clarify the potential health concern. This follow-up study 

° f H the POtent i al P°P ulation exposure, the extent and 
requency ot KiL and PEC exceedances, and a review of toxicological data h^th 

MDL) and C ?h fi h enC t m t] u® ralatl ° nshlp between monitored values (above and below the 
s^veril stuls and “ h ark - 4 P reSentS 3 ***** of P°»utants monitored for 

be -“ £ S^s^ues 

asiaraa - =css ssasar md “>* 

exposure. *** "" UnllkeIy t0 be any healt b effects over a lifetime of 

1.6 Assumptions and Limitations 

be coSeTXfeTaluatinathe rault “ TV and Certain imitations should 

r“-* rc r,sr - d 

ssscsrssas assr- *—« z *. 

Estimates of cancer and noncancer risks computed at monitoring sites are assumed 


8 


effects. However, very few actual individual exposures, and consequent risks, are 
likely to be represented by data at any monitoring site. 

• Assessments of cancer and noncancer risk presented are based on the assumption 
that the annual average concentration calculated from a year or more of monitoring 
reflects an individual's exposure to a specific pollutant at a site for a 70-year period. 
In a few studies included in this assessment, data may have only been available for 
one or several seasons of the year. Hence, long-term temporal representativeness of 
these data is more questionable in some cases. 

• All of the monitoring sites included in this report may not be comparable in terms of 
land use and potential neighboring sources of pollution. Due to the geographic and 
meteorologic variation among monitoring sites, care must be taken in relating the 
results for one study to other studies. 

• Carcinogenic substances are assumed to cause some level of risk at any exposure 
level (i.e., assumes a zero-threshold for adverse effects). The concentrations of 
carcinogens observed in ambient air in these studies are, in fact, much below those 
levels used to determine dose-response relationships leading to the IURs. 

• Many of the IURs are based on "upper bound" estimates of the dose-response data. 

If "lower bound" estimates were used, the estimated risk would be lower, possibly 
zero risk, for some HAPs. 

• The IURs for benzo( a)pyrene (BaP), 1,4-dioxane, captan, and polychlorinated 
biphenyls (PCBs) are based on route-to-route extrapolation from oral unit risk to 
inhalation unit risk. These IURs are not verified by the EPA, and are used in this 
report for screening purposes only. This conversion introduces significant 
uncertainty for these four HAPs. See Appendix B footnotes for further explanation. 

• All of the assumptions and limitations inherent in IURs and RfCs, including those 
relating to high-to-low-dose extrapolations and interspecies applicability, are thereby 
also inherent in this analysis. Also, risk estimates provided do not account for 
potential synergistic, or antagonistic effects of ambient pollutant mixtures relative to 
their individual effects. 

• Qualitative toxicity data such as weight of evidence and severity of effect were not 
considered in this analysis. 

• Calculated excess risk assumes continuous outdoor exposure, without accounting for 
the potential risk derived from exposure to indoor air, workplace exposures or other 
microenvironment exposures. This is important because some pollutants (e.g., 
several VOCs and formaldehyde) are commonly found in some non-outdoor 
environments at concentrations many times higher than outdoor levels. 

• The cancer WOE, IURs, RfCs, and PECs represent the current state of toxicological 
knowledge for the individual chemicals. All of these values contain uncertainty. 

The degree of uncertainty varies for each chemical and benchmark. These values 
are likely to change as more information is obtained. The RfCs for individual 


9 




chemicals are derived using various methods that include different uncertainty 
adjustments and modifying factors. The PECs used herein have undergone only very 
limited internal EPA peer review, and are not EPA-verified or approved. The PECs 
are interim, screening benchmarks. 


Errors or limitations in the ambient monitoring data can have a significant effect on 
the reliability of the risk estimates. With exceptions to specific studies mentioned in 
this report, no effort was made to independently assure the quality of the ambient 
monitoring data used in this report. However, data generally used in this report 
were from quality-assured studies, often using EPA-approved measurement 
techniques. 

• The assumption that "nondetects” are 1/2 the MDL, or zero where a MDL was not 

specified, may introduce some error — particularly for pollutants commonly found 
below these detection levels. 

This report assumes that certain metals are present in the atmosphere in a specific 
chemical form. This was done because the available measurement methods only 
report total elemental metal mass present in a sample, and not in actual chemical 
form or valence state. This may result in an overestimation of the calculated risks 
for metals such as chromium or nickel, where the most toxic form of metal is 
assumed to be the form that is available in the ambient samples. The inhalation 
unit risk factor applied to all chromium readings corresponds to the hexavalent form 
of the element, Cr + , while the risk factor used for nickel corresponds to nickel 
subsulfide. For mercury, in contrast, the only available health benchmark was for 
the elemental form, which may result in an underestimation of actual risks since 
this may not be the most toxic form. 

Hazard quotients >1 should not be assumed to indicate the existence of an adverse 
health effect. Given the uncertainty factors inherent in the RfCs and PECs used in 
this analysis, HQs >1 may pose m threat to human health. Hazard quotients >1 
should be examined further by considering the extent of exceedance, toxicity data, 


Qualitative and quantitative health effects data should be examined more closely 
before making nsk management decisions based on this analysis. 


10 


Table 1-2. Weight of Evidence (WOE) Classification and Available Inhalation 

Unit Risk (IUR) Estimates for HAPs 


CAS 


Cancer 

IUR 

WOE 

IUR 

Number 

Pollutant 

WOE 

per ug/m 3 

Source 

Source 

50000 

Formaldehyde 

B1 

1.30E-05 

IRIS 

IRIS 

50328 

Benzo(a)Pyrene (BaP) 

B2 

2.10E-03 

IRIS 

DDER 

56235 

Carbon tetrachloride (Tetrachloromethane) 

B2 

1.50E-05 

IRIS 

IRIS 

57749 

Chtordane 

B2 

3.70E-04 

IRIS 

IRIS 

67663 

Chloroform (Trichloromethane) 

B2 

2.30E-05 

IRIS 

IRIS 

71432 

Benzene 

A 

8.30E-06 

IRIS 

IRIS 

74873 

Chloromethane (Methyl chloride) 

C 

1.80E-06 

ODER 

DDER 

75014 

Chloroethene (Vinyl chloride) 

A 

8.40E-05 

IRIS 

IRIS 

75070 

Acetaldehyde 

B2 

2.20E-06 

IRIS 

IRIS 

75092 

Methylene chloride (Dichloromethane) 

B2 

4.70E-07 

IRIS 

IRIS 

75252 

Bromoform (Tribromomethane) 

B2 

1.10E-06 

IRIS 

IRIS 

75354 

1,1-Dichloroethene, -ylene (Vinylidene 
chloride) 

C 

5.00E-05 

IRIS 

IRIS 

76448 

Heptachlor 

B2 

1.30E-03 

IRIS 

IRIS 

79005 

1,1,2-Trlchloroethane 

C 

1.60E-05 

IRIS 

IRIS 

79016 

Trichloroethene, -ylene 

B2 

1.70E-06 

IRIS 

DDER 

79345 

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 

C 

5.80E-05 

IRIS 

IRIS 

87683 

Hexachlorobutadiene 

c 

2.20E-05 

IRIS 

IRIS 

91203 

Naphthalene 

c 

4.20E-06 

IRIS 

IRIS 

106934 

1,2-dibromoethane (Ethylene dibromide) 

B2 

2.20E-04 

IRIS 

IRIS 

106990 

1,3-Butadiene 

B2 

2.80E-04 

IRIS 

IRIS 

107062 

1,2-dichloroethane (Ethylene dichloride) 

B2 

2.60E-05 

IRIS 

IRIS 

107131 

Acrylonitrile 

B1 

6.80E-05 

IRIS 

IRIS 

118741 

Hexachlorobenzene 

B2 

4.60E-04 

IRIS 

IRIS 

123911 

1,4-Dioxane 

B2 

3.10E-06 

IRIS 

DDER 

127184 

Tetrachloroethene, -ylene (Perchloroethylene) 

B2 

5.80E-07 

DDER 

DDER 

133062 

Captan 

B2 

1.00E-06 

DDER 

DDER 

593602 

Vinyl bromide 

B2 

3.20E-05 

DDER 

DDER 

1336363 

Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB's) 


2.20E-03 

IRIS 

DDER 

1746016 

2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 

B2 

3.30E+01 

HADD 

HADD 

3268879 

Octochlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 


3.30E-02 


TEFD 

7440382 

Arsenic 

A 

4.30E-03 

IRIS 

IRIS 

7440417 

Beryllium 

B2 

2.40E-03 

IRIS 

IRIS 

7440439 

Cadmium Compounds 

B1 

1.80E-03 

IRIS 

IRIS 

12035722 

Nickel 

A 

4.6E-04 

IRIS 

IRIS 

18540299 

Chromium 

A 

1.20E-02 

IRIS 

IRIS 


11 













Table 1-2. Weight of Evidence (WOE) Classification and Available Inhalation 

Unit Risk (IUR) Estimates for HAPs (cont.) 


CAS 
Number 
35822469 
39001020 
39227286 
40321764 
51207319 
57117314 
57117416 
67562394 
70648269 
NA 
NA 


Pollutant 

2.3.7.8- HeptachIorodibenzo-p-dioxin 
Octochlorodibenzofuran 

2.3.7.8- Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 

2.3.7.8- Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 

2.3.7.8- Tetrachlorodibenzofuran 

2.3.4.7.8- Pentachlorodibenzofuran 

1.2.3.7.8- Pentachlorodibenzofuran 

2.3.7.8- Heptachlorodibenzofuran 

2.3.7.8- Hexachlorodibenzofuran 
Mickel Refinery Dust 
Polycyclic Organic Matter (POM) 


Cancer 

WOE 


IUR 

per ug/m 3 

WOE 

Source 

IUR 

Source 

3.30E-01 


TEFD 

3.30E-02 


TEFD 

3.30E+00 


TEFD 

1.65E+01 


TEFD 

3.30E+00 


TEFD 

1.65E+01 


TEFD 

1.65E+00 


TEFD 

3.30E-01 


TEFD 

3.30E+00 


TEFD 

2.40E-04 

IRIS 

IRIS 

1.00E-04 


EHP 


Notes : 

IRIS 

ODER 

HADD 

TEFD 

EHP 


See Appendix B for further explanation of health data. 

- Integrated Risk Information System (see reference 3) 

= Documentation of De minimis Emission Rates (see references 8 and 9) 
= Health Assessment Document for Dioxin (see reference 10) 

= Toxic Equivalency Factor Document (see reference 11) 

= Environmental Health Perspectives Journal (see reference 14) 


12 


















Table 1-3. Available Reference Concentrations (RfCs) and Preliminary 
Evaluation Concentrations (PECs) for HAPs 


CAS 

Number 

Pollutant 

RfC 

mg/m 3 

PEC 

mg/m 3 

Critical 

Health Effect 

62737 

Dichlorvos 

5.00E-04 


CNS, Decreased Cholinesterase 
Activity 

67561 

Methanol 


3.10E+00 

Systemic Toxicity 

71556 

1,1,1-Trichloroethane (Methyl chloroform) 


9.50E+00 

Hepatotoxicity 

74839 

Bromomethane (Methyl bromide) 

5.00E-03 


Olfactory Lesions 

74884 

lodomethane (Methyl iodide) 

1.00E-02 


CNS, skin, eyes 

75003 

Chloroethane (Ethyl chloride) 

1.30E+01 


Developmental Toxicity 

75058 

Acetonitrile 


1.60E-03 

Liver Hypertrophy, immunosup 

75070 

Acetaldehyde 

9.00E-03 


Olfactory Degeneration 

75150 

Carbon disulfide 


1.00E-02 

Fetus Toxicity 

75252 

Bromoform (Tribromomethane) 


2.00E-02 

Hepatotoxicity 

75343 

1,1 -Dichloroethane (Ethylidene dichloride) 


5.40E-03 

Kidney Damage 

78875 

1,2-Dichloropropane (Propylene 
dichloride) 

6.00E-03 


Nasal Mucosa Hyperplasia 

78933 

Methyl ethyl ketone (2-Butanone) 

1.00E+00 


Decreased Fetal Birth Weight 

95476 

o-Xylene 


6.00E-03 

Develop. Effects, and CNS 

98828 

Cumene 


9.00E-03 

Nasal Irritation, CNS 

100414 

Ethyl benzene 

1.00E+00 


Developmental Toxicity 

100425 

Styrene 

1.00E+00 


CNS 

100447 

Benzyl chloride 


2.20E-04 

Myocardial Necrosis 

106423 

p-Xylene 


6.00E-03 

Develop. Effects, and CNS 

106467 

1,4-Dichlorobenzene (p) 

8.00E-01 


Increased Liver Weight 

106934 

1,2-dibromoethane (Ethylene dibromide) 

2.00E-04 


Sperm Effects 

107028 

Acrolein 

2.00E-05 


Nasal Metaplasia 

107051 

Allyl chloride (3-Chloropropene) 

1.00E-03 


Peripheral Neurotoxicity 

107131 

Acrylonitrile 

2.00E-03 


Nasal Degeneration 

108054 

Vinyl acetate 

2.00E-01 


Nasal Lesions 

108101 

Methylisobutylketone (Hexone) 


1.00E+00 

Liver Increase Wt., Kidney 

108383 

m-Xylene 


6.00E-03 

Develop. Effects, and CNS 

108883 

Toluene 

4.00E-01 


Neurological 

108907 

Chlorobenzene 


6.00E-02 

Renal, Hepato & Testicular 

110543 

Hexane (n-Hexane) 

2.00E-01 


Neurotoxicity 

120821 

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 

2.00E-01 


Increased Liver Weight 

123386 

Propionaldehyde (Propanal) 


9.00E-03 

Olfactory Epith. Degener. 

126998 

Chloroprene 

7.00E-03 


Nasal Lesions 

593602 

Vinyl bromide 

3.00E-03 


Liver - Hypertrophy 

1330207 

m/p-Xylene 


6.00E-03 

Develop. Effects, and CNS 


13 
















Figure 2-1. Cancer Risk by Site and Pollutant for the Atlanta Study 



16 


DeKalb Ft. Mcph. GA Tech M.L. King Mars Hill Tucker 










































































Table 2-1. Atlanta Cancer Risk by Site and Pollutant 



Acetaldehyde 

Benzene 

Formaldehyde 

DeKalb 

5.22E-06 

1.04E-04 

8.05E-05 

Ft. Mcph. 

7.07E-06 

1.53E-04 

1.18E-04 

GA Tech 

9.21 E-06 

1.78E-04 

1.19E-04 

M.L. King 

9.18E-06 

1.44E-04 

1.38E-04 

Mars Hill 

3.25E-06 

9.26E-05 

7.42E-05 

Tucker 

7.75E-06 

1.24E-04 

1.05E-04 


Table 2-2. Atlanta Cancer Risk Ranking by Site and Pollutant 



Acetaldehyde 

Benzene 

Formaldehyde 

DeKalb 

3 

1 

2 

Ft. Mcph. 

3 

1 

2 

GA Tech 

3 

1 

2 

M.L. King 

3 

1 

2 

Mars Hill 

3 

1 

2 

Tucker 

3 

1 

2 


17 























Figure 2-2. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Percentiles for Acetaldehyde 

(RfC=5.00 ppb) 



18 


Ft. Mcph. GA Tech M.L. King Mars Hill 

Sites 













































Figure 2-3. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Percentiles for Ethylbenzene 

(RfC=230.7 ppb) 



19 


Atlanta Study 



















Figure 2-4. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Percentiles for n-Hexane 

(RfC=56.7 ppb) 



a 

0 



uojiuq jad sped 


20 


Ft. Mcph. GATech M.L. King Mars Hill Tucker 

Sites 































Figure 2-5. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Percentiles for Styrene 

(RfC=235 ppb) 



21 


Atlanta Study 

















Figure 2-6. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Percentiles for m/p-Xylene 

(PEC=1.38 ppb) 



cn 


uojnjq jad sped 


Atlanta Study 
















































Table 2-3. Atlanta Hazard Quotient by Site and Pollutant 



Acetaldehyde 

Ethyl 

benzene 

m/p-Xylene 

n-Hexane 

Styrene 

DeKalb 

1.8E-01 

4.4E-03 

2.1E+00 

2.2E-02 

1.2E-03 

Ft. Mcph. 

2.6E-01 

1.5E-02 

6.3E+00 

3.7E-02 

8.3E-03 

GA Tech 

2.3E-01 

2.0E-02 

1.1E+01 

6.0E-02 

7.7E-03 

M.L. King 

2.8E-01 

1.0E-02 

4.9E+00 

3.5E-02 

2.7E-03 

Mars Hill 

1.3E-01 

3.2E-03 

1.5E+00 

1.8E-02 

1.2E-03 

Tucker 

2.6E-01 

9.0E-03 

4.2E+00 

6.8E-02 

2.0E-03 


23 














































3.0 BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA 


Beginning in January 1988, Louisiana's Department of Environmental Quality 
monitored for 8 VOCs at a single station located near the State's Capitol building. By 
March 1990, the scope of the study expanded from 8 to 20 air contaminants. Hourly 
readings were obtained on diskette from the Department of Environmental Quality, and 
were averaged over each appropriate 24-hour period. The 24-hour values were 
subsequently averaged over all years. For the purposes of this report, statistical analyses 
were performed on data collected from 1988 through 1992. 

Modifications in sampling and analysis of compounds resulted in more precise and 
accurate readings starting in August 1989. After this date, samples were collected using 
an organic vapor concentrator consisting of a combination absorbent trap, which 
alternated between sample collection and sample injection. The concentrator was coupled 
to a Hewlett-Packard gas chromatograph fitted with a flame ionization detector (FID) to 
detect selected alkane and aromatic precursors. 

Quality assurance procedures consisted of the following steps. A calibration mixture 
composed of each of the target compounds was used to calibrate the analytical system a 
minimum of three times per week. Retention times according to the gas chromatograph 
were computed and compared with previous calibration runs. Data sets were declared 
valid if the results were found to be within 20 percent of the previous analysis. 

Although numerous compounds were monitored during this study, only benzene has 
an established unit risk factor to provide an estimate of its potential carcinogenic effects. 

It should be noted that the laboratory which performed sample analysis reported inflated 
readings for benzene samples taken prior to August 1989. Due to peak coelution during 
gas chromatography, readings for benzene may be biased by a factor of 2 to 2-1/2. If 
readings taken prior to this date are included in the risk calculation for benzene, the 
estimated individual lifetime cancer risk is 5.19 E-05. However, if the calculation is 
performed using the average concentration of readings starting in August 1989, the value 
for individual cancer risk is estimated to be 3.12 E-05. Figure 3-1 provides a graphical 
representation of cancer risk for benzene based on the post-August 1989 readings for 
benzene and the appropriate IUR. 

Figure 3-2 presents the RfCs for ethylbenzene, hexane, and toluene, graphed relative 
to the Baton Rouge monitoring data statistics. Figure 3-3 presents the same information 
relative to PECs for cumene and three different isomers of xylene. Hazard quotients were 
calculated for these seven pollutants, and are displayed in Table 3-1. 


Data Contact: 

Bob Bailey 

Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality 

Air Laboratory 

11720 Airline Highway 

Baton Rouge, LA 70817 


25 


Figure 3-1. Baton Rouge Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant 



kImII %>‘^'»K £?«6- ; 

■ ' '■•■•• * ' •. . - ■ i ^MIIIhI 

mm '< ■ '> - '■•' 

Bhias' <* • 

"--Z:! '"■ • " ■'..: T *'; : 

! ■ ■■ ^ ' . " ‘ 

' - ' ^ ^ 


liK 


- 


PpStfeiS®* 
I |s .»<„■*! 1 
.: ■ i •>'••■• ’'-V' 


■iiV...... .I. r n, 


..»„ .. 


.■-■■■.■• : - - 


in 

in 

in 

9 

9 

9 

tii 

Ul 

HI 

§ 

S 

o 

in 

oi 

oi 

T" 


)isu J 90 UB 0 aiu|) 3 |n |enpjAjpu| 


26 


Baton Rouge Study 





























Figure 3-2. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Percentiles for Ethyl Benzene, 

Hexane, and Toluene 



* 


27 


Baton Rouge Study 















Figure 3-3. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Percentiles for Xylenes and 



28 


Baton Rouge Study 




















Table 3-1. Baton Rouge Hazard Quotient by Pollutant 


Pollutant 

Baton Rouge 

Ethylbenzene 

1.4E-03 

Hexane 


2.2E-02 

Toluene 

2.0E-02 

Cumene 

7.9E-02 

m/p-Xylene 

6.3E-01 

m-Xylene 

5.6E-01 

o-Xylene 

2.3E-01 


29 













































































































4.0 BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 


The BAAQMD toxics network initially started ambient monitoring for 11 toxic 
pollutants in January of 1987. The data analyzed in this report reflect 24-hour readings 
taken approximately every 2 weeks through December of 1993. The majority of the sites 
contained data for 1987 through 1993, but some sites had data for fewer years. Readings 
were available for 22 separate sites within the District. 

An update to the monitoring data was received on diskette from the BAAQMD. All 
sites were appropriately updated to incorporate this additional data for 1992 and 1993. 
However, the 3 sites of Antioch, Martinez, and Walnut Creek could not be updated due to 
discrepancies in the available data. Only the original data were analyzed for these sites. 

Samples were collected in 20-liter tedlar bags equipped with a pump that allows for 
an adjustable flow rate. Prior to sampling, the bag valve stem is opened, the nitrogen is 
exhausted, and the bag is placed in the sampling carton. After collection, the carton is 
shipped to the laboratory, where the samples are preconcentrated using a Tenax trap. 
Analysis was performed using a gas chromatographic system equipped with electron 
capture detection for halocarbons, and photoionization detectors for selected alkanes and 
aromatics. 

Quality assurance measures performed during sampling included collocated 
sampling, field controls, and field accuracy tests. Analytical QA procedures included daily 
system checks, audits, duplicate sample analysis, and bag contamination checks. 

Nine of the HAPs in the program have IUR values associated with them to assess 
the carcinogenicity of the pollutant. Figure 4-1 presents additive cancer risk by site and 
pollutant, and average cancer risk by pollutant for individual sites is provided in 
Appendix C, Figures C4-1 through C4-22. The values for cancer risk associated with 
individual pollutants are presented by site in Table 4-1, and the HAPs are numerically 
ranked according to cancer risk in Table 4-2. 

Figures 4-2 and 4-3 present RfCs and site-specific percentiles for ethylene dibromide 
and toluene, respectively. Site-specific statistics for methyl chloroform are shown relative 
to the PEC for this pollutant in Figure 4-4. Values corresponding to the hazard quotient 
for the three pollutants are presented in Table 4-3. 

Data Contact: 

Hanford Chew 

Bay Area Air Quality Management District 

939 Ellis Street 

San Francisco, CA 94109 


31 


Figure 4-1. Cancer Risk by Site and Pollutant for the BAAQMD Study 




to 

o 

o 

o 

o 


in 

o 

§ 

o 


TT 

o 

o 

o 

o 


n 

o 

o 

o 


CN 

o 

o 

o 


o 

o 

o 

o 


o 


>fs;j auniajH lenpi.Ajpm (juejnnodmnuj ‘*a |) aAjiippv 


jjmjO »nu|BM 
o[9||Ba 
esou b;ubs 

I9BJEH UBS 

•BAV 

UOJUJOm/OjpUBBT UBS 
lUOUJJIBJ/OJpUBB - ) UBS 

is osM - asop UBS 

;s iflfr - asop ubs 

oaspuBJj ubs 

is t«ei./puouKp!a 

is mz/puoujuoju 


% 


\S 



Ajio poo/wpau 
Bjnqswid 

pUB|)fBO 

BdBN 

M9jA ujBjunoifl 
zaujviBi^ 

ajoujjaAn 

IUOIU3JJ 

aim^uojQ viOd 
PJOOUOO 

ipoquv 



32 


Site 




































Table 4-1. BAAQMD Cancer Risk by Site and Pollutant 




m 

o 

• 

9 

m 

o 

• 

m 

9 

in 

0 

* 

in 

9 

m 

0 

■ 

i? 

in 

0 

in 

«? 

in 

9 

9 

in 

0 

9 

9 9 

m 

0 

9 

in 

0 

m 

9 

in 

0 

in 

9 


Q 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

Ul 

UJ 

Ul 

Ul 

UJ 

Ul 

Ul 

Ul 

Ul UJ 

Ul 

UJ 

LU 

Ul 

LU 

Ul 



CM 

CM 

N 

CM 

CD 

CM 

ao 

CO 

CM 

CM 

CD 

CM 

CM 

CM 

CM CM 

CM 

in 

CD 

CD 

ao 

CM 



CM 

CM 

CM 






CM 

<M 



CM 

«M 

CM CM 

CM 





CM 


>■ 

c 

> 

CO 

co 

cb 

xt 

cb 

CO 


xr 

cb 

CO 

cb 

CO 

cb 

CO 

CO cb 

cb 

in 

cb 

cb 


cb 



p'. 

p- 

p-» 

t*. 

p~ 

p- 

p~ 


I*- 

CO 

r^. 

9 


r^- 


l^» 

9 


r*. 

1 ^. 

P- 



o 

l 

9 

o 

1 

9 

0 

l 

9 

0 

<? 

0 

9 

0 

0 

9 

9 «? 

0 

0 

9 

0 

O 



UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

Ul 

Ul 

Ul 

UJ 

Ul 

Ul 

UJ 

Ul 

Ul 

UJ 

UJ 

Ul UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

LU 

Ul 

Ul 

UJ 

6 


CM 

CO 

CM 

GO 

I''- 

ao 

CM 

CD 

ao 

00 

fc 

CD 

ao 

CO 

5 

CO 

ao 

in 

co 

fM. 

CO xj- 

r^- co 

ao 

0 

ao 

CO 

O 

xr 

p2 

CM 

CD 

s 

o 

a> 

in 


-O’ 

CD 

CD 

CO 

CO 

ao 

Xj 1 

T— 

ad 

xj- 

co 


co 

Tj- 

ym» 

cb 

CO 

cb 

p^ 

jc 

o 

c 

a> 




fesSSS; 


2-3-32-i 









|:% 


IBI 


ffffi 


... . 




•WS53V.V* 


ASSAWA-V 


-.savas ssr. 


7 _ 






-SAV.-A’.A 

*AA-JA'-V.V 




fAVAvvi: y 



1- 

a> 


lliS 


3&5SB 








Mm 



•=^VAVAn 









p-- 

CO 

p- 

IM. 

p- 

IM. 

P- 

1 ^- 

r»- 

1^- 



i-- 


r- r-~ 


CO 

co 

p^ 

CO 

p- 



o 

i 

9 

o 

1 

9 

0 

1 

9 

O 

1 

«? 

0 

«? 

0 

«? 

0 


9 9 

0 

9 

0 

9 

0 

9 



UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

Ul 

UJ 

UJ 

Ul 

LU 

UJ 

Ul 

UJ 

LU Ul 

LU 

UJ 

Ul 

UJ 

Ul 

LU 

o 


CM 

o 

ao 


ao 

CO 

CO 


CM 

r~. 


0 

co 

CD 

r^- cd 


0 

0 

00 

1^. 

CD 

o 

a> 

ao 

CO 


CM 

▼“ 

0 

0 

CO 

O 

*r- 

ao 

CO 

C'. 

r^- 

co in 

CO 


CD 

p^ 


in 

JC 

Cb 

<D 

in 



CO 

CD 

in 

CD 

CD 

CD 

XT 

ad 

xr 

CM 

co 

tT N 

in 


CD 

XT 

M— 

p^ 

o 











A - 







MWm- 





a> 

-C 


- -~.T 


•™ata 


--- - 


: 'VF?7 




mm 





Mmi- 





CL 

a> 




"vfvT^f 






“T- " 





?m~r-Zr 


^£VAv5 


~—T 





p- 

p- 

p*. 

P- 

CO 

p- 

CO 

1 ^- 

I'- 

r^- 

co 

9 

r- 

9 

CO CO 

co 

CO 

r-» 

P>- 

CO 

co 



o 

1 

9 

o 

1 

9 

O 

1 

9 

O 

1 

«? 

O 

1 

«? 

0 

1 

0 

1 

9 9 

0 

9 

0 

9 

0 

1 

p 



UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

Ul 

UJ 

Ul 

Ul 

Ul 

UJ 

Ul 

LU 

UJ 

LU 

UJ 

UJ UJ 

Ul 

UJ 

Ul 

Ul 

LU 

Ul 



CD 

in 

CD 

CO 

CO 


00 

in 


CD 


CM 



cm in 

CO 

CD 

0 

XT 

CM 

LO 

<D 

<D 

a> 

CO 

CO 

o 

CM 

CO 


CO 

I-- 

TT 

CO 



CO 

in cd 


CD 

CO 

CM 


CD 

>• 


cr> 

in 

tT 

CO 

T— 

CO 

«r— 

CO 


ao 

CM 

CO 

cb 

CO 

T- t* 

▼— 


ao 

CO 

CM 

T— 


o 




• 






m 


jSsfygpS 



jpgl 


ws 




' 

Q} 

-C 




- -i._ __ 




"vA-. 5 -. 75 s 


.v‘ ‘-3K-V 


VAV.-A.-.V.-.V 


..V.-.-.A™ 

“A-A™. 


Ha— 


~.-A-AV>“ 



s 

o 
























CO 

o 

9 

CO 

o 

9 

CO 

0 

9 

CO 

0 

!? 

CO 

0 

9 

CO 

O 

9 

co 

0 

9 

99 

CO 

0 

9 

co 

0 

9 

CO 

O 


a> 

<D 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

Ul 

Ul 

Ul 

UJ 

LU 

UJ 

Ul 

UJ 

LU 

Ul 

LU UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

LU 

UJ 

LU 

LU 


CO 

CO 

CO 

CD 

CO 

CO 

CM 

CM 

CO 

CO 

CD 

CO 

co 

CO 

CO CO 

CO 

CO 

co 

CD 

CM 

co 

c 

(S> 

o 

CM 

CM 

CM 

XT 

• 

CM 

CM 

m 

in 

CM 

CM 

CO 

CM 

CM 

CM 

CM CM 

CM 


CM 


in 

CM 



in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

in m 

in 

in 

in 

m 

in 

in 


o 














• -s* 








UJ 

a 


: WMM- 













mM§ 









in 

in 

in 

in 

m 

in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

in in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

in 


<D 

“O 

o 

i 

9 

o 

• 

9 

0 

l 

9 

0 

1 

«? 

0 

1 

s» 

0 

1 

«? 

0 

1 

s» 

9 9 

0 

1 

9 

0 

1 

9 

0 

1 

0 
' « 


UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

Ul 

Ul 

Ul 

UJ 

Ul 

Ul 

Ul 

UJ 

Ul 

LU 

Ul 

LU Ul 

Ul 

UJ 

Ul 

Ul 

LU 

Ul 

<D 


CD 

CD 

cn 

CM 

CD 

CD 

<0 

CO 

CD 

CD 


CD 

CD 

CD 

CD CD 

CD 

m 

CD 

CD 

O 

CD 

<D 

b 

CO 

CO 

CO 


CO 

CO 

p- 

r-; 

CO 

CO 

r'- 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO CO 

CO 


CO 

CO 

ao 

CO 


o 

T“ 


•*— 


Xf— 

▼-* 

T— 


f— 


T— 

▼-» 

O— 


T— 

▼— 


T— 


M— 

▼— 


-Q 






















LU 

b 














"vf 

/aavavaa; 








E 

CO 

o 

9 

CO 

o 

9 

CO 

0 

9 

CO 

0 

Ul 

9 

CO 

0 

9 

CO 

0 

9 

CO 

0 

9 

99 

CO 

0 

9 

CO 

0 

9 

CO 

0 

8 

• 


U. 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

Ul 

LU 

UJ 

UJ 

LU 

Ul 

LU 

UJ 

LU 

Ul 

LU Ul 

LU 

Ul 

LU 

UJ 

LU 

LU 



CD 

CD 

▼— 

CM 


CO 

0 

cn 

O 

CO 

in 

y— 

CO 

CO 

in P- 

CM 

ao 

co 

CD 

CD 

P- 


o 

CD 

CD 

in 

CD 

O 

XT 


CD 


r>: 

co 

CO 

in 

CD 

co xr 

CM 

CM 

P'- 

in 


xr 


1— 

_o 

CO 

CO 


CM 

CM 

■*“ 

in 

CO 

CO 


in 

CM 


T— 

CM CM 

cb 

cb 

T— 

T “ 


CM 


o 




i§§| 











r-3 









in 

in 

m 

in 

in 

in 

CO 

CO 

in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

m in 

in 

8 

in 

CO 

in 

in 



o 

9 

o 

o 

0 

O 

0 

0 

0 

«? 

0 

*? 

0 

1 

«? 

9 9 

O 

l 

0 

« 

9 

0 

1 

0 

1 


XI 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

Ul 

Ul 

UJ 

Ul 

Ul 

Ul 

UJ 

LU 

Ul 

LU UJ 

Ul 

UJ 

LU 

Ul 

Ul 

Ul 



CO 

p» 

s 

CO 

in 

§ 

CO 

0 

T— 

CM 

CM 

CD 

CM 


in cm 

CO 

CD 

O 

0 

0 

CM 


b 

ao 

O 

o 

0 

CD 

i 1 '- 

O 

1^7 

0 


O 

0 0 

0 

CD 

p 

CD 

p 

O 

c 

2 

CM 


▼— 


«r— 


CD 

CD 



▼— 


▼“ 

T— 

T— 

T— 

CD 

y— 

CD 

▼— 

▼— 

O 

o 

CO 

k— 














-1- ^T_~ 

-a-IvaavvH 







XI 


r£:;r\ 


gl-rEr. 










7^; 








CD 

o 

*2 




■ 




















in 

in 

8 

in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

? 

in m 

in 

in 

in 

in 

m 

in 



o 

9 

9 

0 

9 

0 


0 

1 

«? 

O 

«? 

0 

9 9 

O 

1 

9 

0 

1 

9 

0 

l 

9 



UJ 

Ul 

UJ 

UJ 

Ul 

Ul 

Ul 

UJ 

LU 

Ul 

LU 

Ul 

LU 

Ul 

Ul Ul 

Ul 

UJ 

Ul 

UJ 

LU 

Ul 


a> 

m 




CM 

CO 

CO 

r- 

▼— 

CO 

CM 


S fc 

CO XT- 

ao in 

in 

CM 

CO 

in 

CO 



c 

r^- 

CO 

p» 

o 

CD 

in 

0 

CO 

O 

CO 

CM 

0 


m 

y~~l 

CD 

CJ 

m 


N 

C 

<1) 

CO 

cb 

XT 



cb 

in 

in 

xr 

CO 

co 

in 

CO 

CM 

XT 

co in 


in 


cb 


in 






■ 











. 


<D 

> 










vSatlvryjg 


PfS 




"f. 




1 s. 



< 










WW?; 




V:g- 




v 





c 






















c 

0 










- 7 




•“ •> . 






•55 • • 


0 















• ' 




2o 

2b 


•K * 

«» 0 

E 

k_ 

03 

c 

0 









a> 

.ts 

£ 

§U 


lip 

5 

CD 

> 




£ 

0 

§ § 

O 

O 

« 

O 

x: cn 

xr 5 
• • 

0 

1b. 

T3 

■O 

"35 

8 


(D 

a> 




_ 

c 



PI 

CD 

C 

■e 

C 



O) 

■0 

c 

c 

c 

a> <D 

c 

c 

03 

0 


O 



| 

P 

o 

o 

c 

o 

1— 

o 

tr 

§ 

0 

E 

CD 

CO 

c 

3 

ca 

CL 

T3 

C 

R> 

JC 

■L. 

3 

S3 

(/> 

£ 

8 

5 

TJ 

0 

E 

0 

E 

sz 

ca 

u 

c 

C/> CA 

0 0 

-0 “3 
c e 

ca 

ID 

_l 

C 

s 

—1 

c 

"ca 

QC 

c 

oc 

CO 

c 

O 

!sj 

3 

c 



c 

S 

o 

0) 

> 

ca 

O 

CD 

ca 

<D 



ca 

ca ca 

CO 

ca 

CO 

CO 

ca 



< 

u. 

£ 


2 

S 

z 

O 

QL 

cn 

cc 

be 

CO 

cn cn 

cn 

cn 

cn 

cn 

> 



33 









































Table 4-2. BAAQMD Cancer Risk Rank by Site and Pollutant 


<u 

T3 

'ill 

O 

o 

■>J 


(M W i- 


CM '.CM' CM CM>■ (M CM W r- N CM CM t- CM CM CM CM CM 


O 
O a> 

o S 

£ a> 


o> a> sso)0)0)coo)Soi«jooo)oia)C)«>o>so)0) 


6 

»— 

o 


coNa)coflO«ocoNNO)cog>a)coflococo<niAa)coco 


2 ^ 

Q <u 


<D 

C (j) 
« -O 
>> >— 
£ £ 
« x: 
2 O 


N(O00O)SNNOI0009NNN(ONNSS«COSN 


0> 

a> 'O 
c 

ja> o 

>N f 

£ ■— 
uj o 


u)u)ioinin<oinu)u)io(ou>u)ioiAinu)(n(oiou)in 


a> 

a> 2 

f I 

£ £ 

uj i5 


^rtwwnnncon^nrtnonrtNrtnwne') 


E 

k_ 

o 

o 

&— 

o 


(0(0(0(0<09(0(D(0(Oinn(ON(0(0(0(ON(0(0(0 


<u 

T3 


o O 

•S 2 

ro "s; 
O h- 


n M- n *T 


0> 

c 

<D 

rsi 

c 

a> 

CD 


T- T- Tt N T- T- T- *T- NT-T-T-OJl-r-T-OT-T-T-^ 




■ 


■ 


*g 5 t- 
o 
o 


2 c 

LI O 


e o 
< O 


o 

ti 


8 


E 

a> 


o E x: 


2 
o 
E 

k- ■— 

S» tr 
> «j 


5 

.2 

> 

75 

c 

3 

O 


-a c 


.S' s £ 3 

“ 5 § -e 

“ O § § S 

J3 | S i it 


> 

< 


o 

— 71 >i o 

in - 


in 

O 
co 


03 

o 


§ 


in 


ro J2 

CL -a* Zi TJ 75 C 

<o b S <u £ .2 <a 
Z O Q. OC d QC (/] 


V 

(/> 

o 


s 

o 


■a T 3 


03 

tO 


03 

to 


(O 
a> 
—J 

c 

03 

to 


03 

Jj 

c 

03 

to 


_ OB 

a> in 

03 O 

75 oc 

OC 03 


OB 03 

to to 


<u 
V 

k_ 

O 
o. 3 
■g £ £ 
75 ™ 
> 5 


34 
















Figure 4-2. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Percentiles for Ethylene Dibromide 

(RfC=2.6E-2 ppb) 


c 





r. 

o 





o 

<1> 

8: 

iO 

r^- 

o 

to 

LO 

CM 

c 

a) 

CO 

1 

• 

□ 

o 

o 

< 

1 



jjaajQ mu|8M 
0(3||8A 
esoy ejues 
isejey ubs 

3AV 

uoiuJom/ojpu83-| ues 
)uouiJ|ej/ojpue3~| ues 

is osM • asor ues 

1 $ iRf ■ 9sop ues 

oospuejj ues 

IS MiEl/PUOUiqaju 

IS iflZ/puouiijoiu 

A^o pooMpsy 

6 jnqsuid 

puepjeo 

edeN 

M3|A ujejunow 
zsujyen 

3J0UU3AI1 
)U0UJ3JJ 
3«ip|UOJ0 VIOJ 
pjOOUOQ 

qooiiuv 


CD 


uojinq Jdd sped 


35 


BAAQMD Study 


























Figure 4-3. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Percentiles for Toluene 

(RfC=160.1 ppb) 




5133J0 mU|BM 

0(3||BA 

BSOy BJUBS 

|3BjBy UBS 

3AV 

UOJUJOLLL/OJPUBBT UBS 
)U0lUJjBy/0jpUB3-| UBS 

is OSM - asor UBS 

IS Iflfe * 9S0P UBS 

03SI3U8JJ UBS 

IS WCl/puouiqojy 
IS tflzypuouiqoib 
Ajiq pooMpay 

6jnqs«jd 

PUB|)|B0 

Bd&N 

M3jA UjBiunoyy 

zauipBH 

3JOULI9AIT 
JU0UJ9JJ 
3«IP|UOJO IJOJ 
PJ03U0Q 
M30IIUV 


<n 

<D 

c75 


uonnq jad sped 


36 


BAAQMD Study 

























Figure 4-4. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Percentiles for Methyl Chloroform 

(RfC=1.74E+3 ppb) 




CO 


uo;n;q jad sped 


37 


BAAQMD Study 

























Table 4-3. BAAQMD Hazard Quotient by Site and Pollutant 



Ethylene Dibromide 

Methyl Chloroform 

Toluene 

Antioch 

3.8E-01 

3.0E-04 

2.4E-02 

Concord 

3.8E-01 

3.0E-04 

2.6E-02 

Fort Cronkhite 

38E-01 

1.IE-04 

5.0E-03 

Fremont 

3.9E-01 

1.2E-03 

2.8E-02 

Livermore 

3.8E-01 

5.5E-04 

4.8E-02 

Martinez 

3.8E-01 

4.3E-04 

3.6E-02 

Mountain View 

4.0E-01 

3.5E-04 

2.9E-02 

Napa 

3.9E-01 

2.3E-04 

3.0E-02 

Oakland 

3.8E-01 

2.9E-04 

2.1E-02 

Pittsburg 

3.8E-01 

6.0E-04 

2.3E-02 

Redwood City 

3.9E-01 

8.3E-04 

4.3E-02 

Richmond/7th St 

3.8E-01 

3.0E-04 

1.8E-02 

Richmond/13th St 

3.8E-01 

2.8E-03 

5.3E-02 

San Francisco 

3.8E-01 

5.4E-04 

3.6E-02 

San Jose - 4th st 

3.8E-01 

5.1E-04 

3.9E-02 

San Jose - WSC st 

3.8E-01 

4.4E-04 

3.6E-02 

San Leandro/Fairmont 

3.8E-01 

3.7E-04 

2. IE-02 

San Leandro/Thornton Ave. 

4.0E-01 

4.9E-04 

3.7E-02 

San Rafael 

3.8E-01 

4.3E-04 

2.7E-02 

Santa Rosa 

3.8E-01 

2.3E-04 

2.6E-02 

Vallejo 

4.1E-01 

7.2E-04 

2.8E-02 

Walnut Creek 

3.8E-01 

3.2E-04 

2.9E-02 


38 








5.0 BRIDGEPORT DIOXTN/FURAN STUDY 


The Baseline Monitoring Program took place in Bridgeport, Connecticut beginning 
on November 13, 1987 and continuing through January 13, 1988. The study was intended 
to provide an indication of pre-operational ambient background levels of polychlorinated 
dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs) and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs) in the immediate 
vicinity of a planned municipal solid waste incinerator. Twenty-four to 72-hour samples 
were collected for 9 discrete sample sets including 6 sites in the Bridgeport metropolitan 
area. 12 

Polyurethane foam (PUF) samplers equipped with a glass fiber filter and sorbent 
trap were used to collect particulate and vapor-phase PCDDs and PCDFs, respectively. 

All native dioxins and furans collected from the ambient air were quantified against a 
series of isotopically-labeled internal standards. After fortification with the internal 
standards; the PUF samples were extracted using toluene prior to high resolution gas 
chromatography/high resolution mass spectrometry (HRGC/HRMS) analysis. Nondetected 
values were assigned 1/2 the MDL value. 

Data were not reported by sample site in this study, but rather, were aggregated 
across sample sites and reported for a series of nine temporal intervals. To construct a 
long-term average, all reported data were averaged across all temporal intervals, yielding 
a single, study-wide average concentration for each measured dioxin and furan congener. 
Hence, only a single, study-wide cancer risk is calculated. 

Figure 5-1 presents the study-wide aggregated risk for all dioxin congeners (total 
dioxins) and all furan congeners (total furans). The aggregated risk accounts for all 
congeners that possess an inhalation unit risk factor. All other congeners (those without 
cancer risk factors) are assumed to present no cancer risk. Table 5-1 breaks out the 
aggregate dioxin and furan risks into individual risks for those specific congeners with an 
available IUR. 


39 


Figure 5-1. Aggregate Cancer Risk by Pollutant for the Bridgeport Study 




• : .-. . •. -:•. . ■ V . r? ■ 

iMMMMmmmm m mm mm *t x ^" 

• « s^fCif;'’.^.^.^. , % ''•"?»r<^»‘. “.»■"'»-*: 

/••<&*»• vS *1 *;*v4KE?< I*- 

tlllpii P swp JP I HK 

W$im j»!MBWiM^^MM P^p » ■ &k&w « 

;««•■¥•\'•*». ■*<': iSJWsNsS* '< •>•' 

If z®. |HiQjflc* s '‘H«S 

s Wmm' , • -•' ■ i-.'V^S <.\^ .Mg.« . *t-&- Mill 

<■ "i* ~ . > > . , 'V »,', * v'« 

iWi. f - 1 < » «5>-~,-:»''-S/-'!". * J"'>»<* » .,•?;:»«!>.. .!«;. .-!•<,<*:' '■ 

4? ■&* f ,> v <t >> <• j ' sk<$>■<*, ■^^'sT *W 

- / *% ^i^# r '4y V; ' > 

vSv^SXiUvjiiitW^ •-*•• <'^W- 

' / 'jP'v$ >\v^ P-r^. < ' ^-' '-' 


^Sm2hc<»&o«& 




to 

to 

to 

to 

to 

to 


h- 

!». 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

UJ 

Ul 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

8 

o 

°o 

o 

to 

§ 

8 

8 

8 

o 

o 

8 

CN 

T— 

T““ 

T* 

T* 

▼“ 

00 

to 



>|S|J jaoueo aujuajii |enp;A;pu| 



40 


Total Dioxins Total Furans 








































Table 5-1. Bridgeport Study-wide Cancer Risk, by Dioxin and Furan Congener 


Congener 

Individual Lifetime Cancer Risk 

Dioxins 

2.3.7.8- TCDD 

2.3.7.8- PeCDD 

2.3.7.8- HxCDD 

4.01 E-07 

3.94E-07 

4.87E-07 

2,3,7,8-HpCDD 

1.57E-07 

2,3,7,8-OCDD 

6.93E-08 

Total Dioxins 

1.51 E-06 

Furans 

2,3,7,8-TCDF 

2.59E-07 

1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 

5.19E-08 

2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 

7.68E-07 

2,3,7,8-HxCDF 

7.91 E-07 

2,3,7,8-HpCDF 

8.08E-08 

2,3,7,8-OCDF 

6.95E-09 

Total Furans 

1.96E-06 


41 




























































































































































__ 









































6.0 CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD 


In 1985, the ARB's toxics sampling network initiated ambient air monitoring at 25 
separate sites in California. Based on CARB's advice, readings taken prior to July 1988 
were discounted for the risk assessment. Twenty-four hour samples were collected for 38 
air contaminants for the duration of the study, which continued through June 1991. 
Readings for gases and aromatics data were expressed in ppbv, while readings for metals 
and semi-volatiles were expressed in ng/m 3 . The data that were collected were stipulated 
as preliminary and subject to revision, yet no revisions to date have been received or are 
expected. 

Inhalation unit risks have been established for 11 of the pollutants included in the 
CARB study, and additive lifetime cancer risk is presented for the 25 sites in Figure 6-1. 
Figures C6-1 through C6-24 in Appendix C display this data for the individual sites 
within the study. Tables 6-1 and 6-2 provide the values for the risk estimates by site, and 
the ranking of the 12 pollutants according to cancer risk, respectively. 

Inhalation reference concentrations have been developed for six compounds, and 
PECs have been established for five of the pollutants. Figures 6-2 through 6-7 present 
the RfCs, and Figures 6-8 through 6-12 display the PECs. The RfC or PEC is graphed 
relative to the mean concentration and the monitoring data percentiles for each site. 
Hazard quotients were calculated to assess noncancer risk associated with these 
pollutants, and are listed in Table 6-3. 

Data Contact: 

Robert Maxwell 

California Air Resources Board 

2020 L. Street (or P.O. Box 2815) 

Sacramento, CA 95812 


43 


Figure 6-1. Cancer Risk by Site and Pollutant for the CARB Study 








o 




UJ 

LU 

LU 

O 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

cd 

in 





LU 


CO 




C4 




5|Sjj 9Ui!J3|!i lenpiAipui (lueiniiodiunw ‘*a*!) eA|l!PPV 


s 

■4* 

LU 

S 


pueidn 

uoppojs 

UBjqooo*Aa||BA |ui|S 
0 |||Jjeo-ejeqjeg bjues 
asop ues 

8BSUB^JV-03SjOUBJJ ubs 
xnopiqny 
puoiuijDjy 
qoBsg 6uon i#jon 

3|Bp>lBO-OlS8p0fl 



asnoqynoo-oisapow 

IS mn-ompon 
paojaw 
sa|s6uv son 

3AII0-0US3JJ 
IS ISJjJ-OUS3JJ 
JU0UJ3JJ 

3}U0W 13 
uo[BQ 13 
pjoauoo 
s»m 6|3H sn4IO 
BISIA Binqo 
UI3|BS-03mO 
)|U6qjng 

P|3j|Si3^Bg 


44 


Sites 




























































































Table 6-1. CARB Cancer Risk by Site and Pollutant 


a> 

T3 


. 










: : 

.... 












E 


:■ ' 











isygssi 












o 

to 

9 

CO 

in 

CO 

CO 

in 


in 

CO 


CO 

m 



CO 

CO 

in 

in 

CO 

in 

in 

CO 

in 

JQ 

O 

i 

o 

• 

o 

a 

o 

• 

o 

o 

1 


o 

1 

9 


o 

9 


&§ 

o 

9 

o 

9 

o 

9 

o 

o 

o 

a 

-a 

LU 

UJ 

LU 

UJ 

LU 

Ul 

LU 


LU 

UJ 


LU 

LU 



LU 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

LU 

Ul 

LU 

UJ 

LU 

<D 

c 


o 

o 

CD 

m 


in 


O 

CO 


CO 

CO 


EEEEEE 


in 

CM 

co 

CD 

in 

O 

o 

CO 

o 

CM 

CO 



in 

o 

^Ipte 

CM 

in 


CO 

o 



D- 

to 



CO 

▼— 

CO 

CD 

O 

<u 


oi 

CD 

•T* 

CD 

o> 

T— 



oi 


oi 




oi 

oo 

T— 


cd 

T- 

▼« 

oi 

•a— 











- Sul 



\ • 












-C 






•~"v E—. ‘ 







?;ee„.v 






V..VV. 


•SbSS^w 


”• v:e.j_7 


UJ 






agjj 


■ 


■ 


. 

P 




' 








E 

























w» 

O 

CO 

o 

1 

9 

CO 

O 

1 

s 

a 

CO 

o 

1 

CO 

o 

• 

CO 

o 

1 


CO 

o 

1 

8 


9 




CO 

o 

1 

CO 

o 

CO 

o 

1 


CO 

o 

1 

8 

a 

CO 

o 

1 

CO 

o 

I 

CO 

o 

1 

o 

LU 

UJ 

LU 

UJ 

LU 

UJ 

LU 

• •••. 

LU 

Ul 


UJ 

Ul 



LU 

UJ 

LU 

Ul 

LU 

UJ 

LU 

LU 

LU 


CO 

to 


r- 


CO 

OO 


CD 



CD 





CM 

CM 

s 

T— 

o 

CO 

in 

CM 

o 

f"'- 

<>! 

CO 

«> 

m 

CO 

oo 

_ 

O 

CO 


CO 





CO 


in 


CD 

CO 

O 

xz 

•*— 

CO 

▼— 


cd 

CM 

CM 


CM 



cd 

•ar— 


»t’ " Et 

in 

cd 

CM 

CM 

CM 

cd 

CM 

CM 

cd 

o 















IB!! 









CD 













V 












■a 






WBB 




“..ppp 


fgplf 

2#V 


|§ilgf 






47r:.'. 




o 










tfi:? 















JC 

lO 

in 

in 

m 

in 

in 

in 


in 

in 


in 

in 



in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

o 

03 

o 

1 

9 

o 

l 

9 

o 

1 

o 

o 

l 


o 

1 

9 


9 

9 



o 

9 

o 

1 

o 

o 

1 

o 

o 

1 

o 

a 

o 

1 


LU 

UJ 

LU 

Ul 

LU 

Ul 

LU 


LU 

UJ 


UJ 

UJ 



LU 

K 

LU 

UJ 

LU 

LU 

LU 

Ul 

LU 

<D 

O 

CM 

CO 

LO 


CO 

▼— 


CO 

D- 



o 



D~- 

in 

CD 

O 

O 

in 

CO 

CD 


cm 

CO 




CM 

• 

CM 


CM 

• 


CO 

• 

CM 

• 



CM 

• 

CM 

• 

CM 

CM 

CM 

CM 

CM 

C 

T— 

T™ 



T“ 


T~ 


T— 



▼— 




IT— 


T— 




▼“ 


T— 

.2 






| fMf. 











ryt-v 








s 


• WME 


Wz&M 


WMM 


r i- if 









rT'EEE* 








o 






... 









■ 










a> 

to 

'cr 

in 

in 

in 

in 

m 


in 

in 


rr 

in 



in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

c 

a> 

rsi 

o 

1 

9 

o 

1 

9 

o 

1 

9 

o 

1 


o 

l 

9 


9 

9 



o 

• 

9 

o 

1 

9 

o 

1 

9 

o 

i 

9 

o 

l 

LU 

LU 

LU 

UJ 

LU 

UJ 

LU 


LU 

Ul 


UJ 

Ul 



LU 

UJ 

LU 

Ul 

LU 

LU 

LU 

LU 

LU 

c 

ao 

▼-» 

O 

T— 

CO 

CM 

CO 


r-. 

in 


o 

CO 



OO 

o 

in 

**r 

1"- 

CO 

O 

r— 

CD 

CD 

o 

CO 

oo 

oo 

O 

CO 

D- 


CO 

'ir 


o 





CD 

CD 


■*“ 

CM 

O 

co 

CM 

03 


■»“ 

Tf 


in 

d 

cd 


in 

cd 


▼— 

cd 



oi 

in 

CO 

rr 

CO 


in 

in 















’’ 












CD 

T3 




■1 zM 7 M: 











-/•"‘"•'"a 










>■» 

CO 

in 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

in 

CO 

CO 

in 

in co 


CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

co 

CO 

CO 

CO 

co 

in 

CD 

-Q 

o 

9 

o 

9 

o 

9 

o 

9 

o 

9 

o 

LLI 

9 9 


o 

1 

9 

O 

( 

9 

o 

LU 

9 

o 

1 

9 

o 

i 

9 

o 

i 

LU 

UJ 

LU 

UJ 

LU 

LU 

LU 

Ul 

LU 

UJ 

UJ LU 


LU 

UJ 

LU 

Ul 

Ul 

LU 

UJ 

LU 

LU 

LU 



CO 

in 

in 

in 

CD 

oo 

in 

O 

CM 

1^- 

CO O- 


CO 

CO 

r-~- 

CO 

CD 


O 

CO 

O 

CO 

O 

CO 

CD 

CO 


i^- 

CO 

CM 

in 

CO 


to 

o 



CO 


to 

T“ 

O 

CM 


CD 

r-~ 

in 

■a— 

a> 

cd 

T— 

in 

d 

cd 

cd 

D- 

■*— 

CO 

OO 

▼- 

oi 


cd 

CO 

oi 

d 

oi 

cd 

cd 

in 

tri 

cd 


< 






jllli 

















- 


CD 

























e 






..-.ErEE-tv 



















QJ 

T3 

o 

««T 

9 

o 

? 

•o- 

o 

9 

^r 

o 


o 

? 


? 

■O’ 

9 



o 

1 

9 

^r 

o 

• 

9 

o 

* 

? 

in 

o 

i 

9 

^r 

o 

* 

CO 

Llll 

LU 

LU 

LU 

LU 

Ul 

LU 


LU 

UJ 


UJ 

UJ 



LU 

Ul 

LU 

Ul 

LU 

Ul 

LU 

Ul 

LU 


Cd 

CO 

CO 

CO 

O 

in 

CO 


O 



CD 

CO 



O 

o 

▼— 

CM 


CM 

CD 

o 

r-- 

ca 

CO 

to 


o 

-o; 


CO 


CM 

oo 


CO 

N 

• 



CO 

CM 

tq 

• 

CM 

• 

CM 

CO 

co 

• 


cd 





■t—- 



T“ 


CM 




c\i 

T“ 

T— 


CM 

CM 

oo 

? 1 

V - 

CO 









EE-.-Ev"'.'- 







..•v.v.-.*.“-.v.-.r 








•* 










.EEEEE 


,.;E:eh v 











■ 




























































































E-rs : Ev. 




CO 








WMz. 


.pE 


x . 













5 


o 










gpssss 




EEHEE 




<D 





c 
















55 



£ 

to 

3 

O 

JZ 

_a> 

CO 

o 

CO 



to 

JC 

k_ 

< 


' W- 

co 

o 

a 

(O 

CO 

o 








</> 







•c 

■o 

<D 



Q 


o 





V •• 








Fresno-Olive 

Los Angeles 

Merced 

JZ 

3 

JC 

CD 

- "’vr 


o 


a— 

o 



CARB 

Bakersfield 

Burbank 

Chico-Salem 

Chula Vista 

o> 

CD 

(A 

3 

>— 

.t£ 

o 

Concord 

El Cajon 

<D 

♦- 

C 

o 

2 

LU 

Fremont 

2 

u. 

1 

to 

to 

k_ 

U- 

6 

w 

ID 

■S 

s 

O 

cn 

CD 

TJ 

O 

s 

CO 

O 

6 
*— • 
to 
to 

*§ 

2 

CD 

c 

o 

—1 

xz 

■c 

o 

Richmond 

Rubidoux 

to 

O 

c 

CO 

w 

UL 

c 

CO 

CO 

San Jose 

CO 

•e 

CO 

CD 

CO 

■4— • 

c 

CO 

cn 

~I 

>k 

_a> 

"co 

> 

E 

CO 

Stockton 

Upland 


45 

































Table 6-1. CARB Cancer Risk by Site and Pollutant (cont.) 




















































<D 












•«: :\= 

v“J-5rS: 


^vlylrXv:; 






-T^Sswirv 




C 

0) 








1 


ffs * 









ly 


sss 





r-- 

5? 



r^- 

CD 

r-- 


r~- 

r^. 


? 




f'- 

? 

CO 

i^ 


h» 

i^- 

r-~. 

CO 

JEL 

o 

1 

o 

• 

9 

o 

9 

o 

- F* 

o 

«? 


9 



o 

o 

9 

o 

i 

9 

o 

• 

9 

o 

1 

<D 

LU 

LU 

LU 

Ul 

LU 

Ul 

LU 


LU 

Ul 


Ul 

Ui 


* .£* 

LU 

ui 

LU 

Ui 

LU 

Ul 

LU 

Ui 

LU 

U 

CD 

CO 

▼— 

o 

O 

m 



r^- 



in 

o 



CO 

CO 

CO 

CM 

CM 

CM 

CO 


05 

o 

05 


CM 

• 

CO 


CM 


CO 

o 


«? 




CO 

CO 


CO 


CO 



in 

si 


CM 



CM 

T— 



cd 

in 



m 



ad 

rr 

T— 

•*r 

in 

I s * 

in 

CM 

1 — 

_o 


Mi 




Mg 













i m 






k. 

1- 








' 







WBM 










a> 

























e 


:”3§lsSl£ 













_vT • 








: 


CL) 


i-..— 


. «£ -a: 















•A^si^ss 






f 

r- 

CD 

I'-. 

r*~ 


CD 

CO 


r-~ 



CO 



•j!5^55^ 

CO 

r*. 


r-- 

r^- 


r-> 

i"- 

CO 

a> 

o 

o 

1 

9 

o 

• 

9 

o 

1 

9 

o 

1 


o 

«? 


S» 

9 



o 

9 

o 

9 

o 

9 

o 

i 

9 

o 

1 

LU 

Ul 

LU 

Ul 

LU 

Ul 

LU 

Ippg 

LU 

Ul 


Ul 

Ui 


mmm 

LU 

Ui 

LU 

Ui 

LU 

Ui 

LU 

LU 

LU 


▼— 

CD 

CO 

■o- 


05 

CO 


o 

CM 


CM 

CM 


j.vv.--:-. 

CM 

in 

CD 

05 

f"~ 

CO 

■r— 

CD 

05 

o 


, T“ 

1^ 

N 

CM 

CM 

CM 

Hn 

1^. 



CO 

CO 



1^- 

CM 

o 

05 

oo 

CM 

CD 

CD 

CM 

r 

CO 

Tf 

▼— 

CD 

CO 

▼" 

T— 



of 


CM 

in 


. V 

T— 

in 

05 

1^- 

in 

cd 

cd 


CM 

p 






r? 









1 










a> 




WMMt' 





















CL 


■jggggSg 











-•• 7f5“- ^ 




















• 










































a> 


• ~--r- 




— * 






•' ? 5 f 





i-j.gjS’Vir 








2 




> IB 


ggpg 







sm 












k— 

o 


Sfcll 


--7~- 


v>3^:I 






§ 

"-TvTiilT 


l$S!p 


T-i/"'" 









CO 

to 

r>- 


CO 

CO 

CO 


CO 

CD 


CD 

i^. 



CO 

to 

CO 

CD 

CO 

to 

CO 

r^- 

CO 

a 

o 

1 

9 

o 

i 

9 

o 

t 

9 

o 

LU 

r‘~ 

o 

l 

«? 


9 

9 



o 

9 

o 

9 

o 

9 

o 

9 

O 

a> 

LU 

Ul 

LU 

Ul 

LU 

Ul 

- 

LU 

Ul 


Ul 

Ul 



LU 

ui 

LU 

Ul 

LU 

Ui 

LU 

Ul 

LU 

c 

oo 

■*r 

in 

in 

CM 

CM 

O 


CM 

o 



▼— 



■y— 

to 

in 

r^- 


CM 

CD 

CM 

CO 

a> 

CM 

CO 

CO 

CM 


o 

•*“ 


▼— 

CM 


i*- 

05 



CO 

CM 

CO 

CO 

CM 

CM 

o 

05 

CO 

>. 

T—> 


ad 

o> 

T— 

-T— 

▼— 


T— 

T- 


CM 

05 



CM 

T— 

T— 

cd 

<r— 

V— 

V— 

05 

CM 

£ 















iHii 










a> 






ipS 











•Tisw'twr 








2 






iS&jSSix-i 


Ml 





liBI 




MB 


“ 






CD 

























■a 




VT 


yZZ&ZZr: 







1 










n 


^ * 

to 

m 

in 

in 

to 

in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

m 

in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

CD 

o 

1 

o 

• 

o 

1 

9 

O 

1 

9 

o 

l 

o 

o 

o 

o 

<? 

o 

o 

o 

o 

9 

o 

9 

o 

o 

o 

p 

o 

■o 

LU 

Ul 

LU 

Ul 

LU 

Ul 

LU 

Ul 

LU 

Ul 

LU 

Ui 

LU 

LU 

Ul 

LU 

Ui 

LU 

Ul 

LU 

Ui 

LU 

Ul 

LU 

CO 

05 

to 

05 

o 

CM 



CD 

CD 

in 

CM 

CO 

CO 

CM 

05 

05 


CO 

CM 


CM 

CO 


CO 

E 

o 

CO 

<o 

CO 

c\j 

CO 

CM 

cq 

▼— 

05 

CD 

05 

CD 

cd 

N 

CO 

05 

cd 

^r 

05 

cd 

cd 

CO 

in 

CO 

in 

CO 

°5 

in 

cd 


CO 

m 

cd 

CO 

cd 

o 

























u_ 

























CD 

























2 












-'T - -- 













o 








jpg! 





»g 












jC 

in 

in 

in 

in 

m 

in 

in 


in 

in 


in 

in 



in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

to 

in 

in 

a 

o 

1 

9 

o 

1 

9 

o 

9 

o 

i 

W1 

o 

1 

s> 


9 

9 



o 

9 

o 

9 

o 

9 

o 

9 

o 

T3 

LU 

LU 

LU 

LU 

LU 

Ul 

LU 

. 

LU 

Ul 


Ul 

Ul 


.r- v 

LU 

Ul 

LU 

Ui 

LU 

Ul 

LU 

Ul 

LU 

CD 

C 

in 

in 

in 

m 

in 

in 

in 

.r: 

in 

in 


in 

in 



m 

in 

to 

in 

LO 

in 

to 

in 

in 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

p 

p 


p 

p 


o 

o 



o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

CD 





▼“ 

T- 

▼— 



T— 


▼— 

▼— 



T— 

T— 

▼- 

▼- 

T— 

T— 

▼— 

T— 

T— 

>* 


iisgi 























2 


WMM 























ill 


|§§| 


“1“ "'i:*? 




■ / 




WMM 

















l|jj 


|§j||§ 






. 







to 












• J 


>“ * —‘ 




"''•"•••••.•'•V 







ra 








,v“. „ 


j£3K&38j* 










a> 

CO 

3 

O 

sz 





to 


o 






J§|§ 


; 









JC ; 

6 

I s 

O 

ra 

JZ 

o 

re 



ra 

J£ 

< 


*w 

ra 

O 

03 

sz 

o 



03 

2 

CD 

« 

05 

•5C 

C 

CO 

o 

E 

_Q) 

CO 

(/) 

6 

TO 

to 

•mm 

> 

ra 

CO 

JC 

O) 

*<D 

CO 

■o 

o 

o 

c 

o 

"to 

CD 

C 

o 

c 

o 

E 

CD 

CO 

2 

UL 

6 

CD 

.> 

o 

6 

c 

CO 

CD 

CD 

05 

C 

< 

•c 

3 

o 

% 

+—• 

CO 

CD 

T3 

JC 

ra 

O 

6 

to 

CD 

CD 

03 

05 

c 

o 

_l 

£Z 

■a 

e 

o 

E 

X 

3 

o 

*3 

6 

o 

to 

o 

c 

ra 

h. 

u. 

(D 

tn 

O 

“5 

2 

ra 

■s 

ra 

03 

ra 

o 

o 

• 

>» 

2 

"ra 

> 

c 

o 

&. 

•a 

c 

QC 

< 

JC 

CO 

3 

O 

JC 

J= 

k— 

o 

O 

2 

if) 

a> 

to 

CD 

to 

o 


3 

O 


■E 

o 

o 

JQ 

3 

c 

ra 

c 

03 

c 

CO 

E 

o 

o 

ra 

o. 

o 

03 

03 

o 

O 

b 

o 

Ul 

Ul 

U 

u 

U 

—1 

S 2 

2 

2 

z 

QC 

QC 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

Z3 


46 
















Table 6-2. CARB Cancer Risk Ranking by Site and Pollutant 



47 














Table 6-2. CARB Cancer Risk Ranking by Site and Pollutant (cont.) 




























o 


























e 










::•••••••: Sy: 


yk.-.'-r 




•--."•“i'n 




?44. :: -:4 






<u 




_ _* 




•k v&k 










f- -4 .. 


i-v-x.B” 




X T>f : . 


>- 


‘4Ti 


- -• ” 




.44:74 








:t;l. ? 










JZ 




_-- 














:':-4“XrX 








♦ * 


.-.V.Vf.'.VAVi- 




SSKSSr 




















d) 

o 

T-*. 

O 


T- 

o 

T— 


T— 

o 


T— 


cn 


i? 



0 



0 

T— 



lb- 

‘ T ™ 

T “ 


' r “ 

T * 

T— 




t— 






’ r “ 



T— 


ymm 

f “ 


* 

o 




.. _ . . . 




444?L 






."r 












JZ 






s 










•:EcvE ; " 






-• M- • 


-^5’ 


o 


„r ” -X 


~z 


r-V f- - 








4- 






vXXCtXX 


f-:vx 








-rXr"“vX# 


- si j 






flf-v - 


MSt-vSv 


■•.•■VAW.y.vCv 


~ • 




illX'CH. 




1 - 












jg4; 


47' H 












<D 


























C 






















nT-VSv 




cd 




- 






















>. 














- .“.,?■?■ 












JZ 










- 


V-" ••' 






i-/- 








•4-^ 


sswss 
























<D 

Q 

T— 

O 

T— 

O 

o 

CJJ 

C7> 


o 

•r* 


o 


GO 



o 

T— 


0 

0 

T— 

0 

O 

O 








T— 








TF™ 




^F- 

T™ 

▼— 


o 


EWi 












‘ j 4". 




Mit 


>i£ff 






JZ 






,>Sv-’ 














“V E" 


-EE-r- 




o 


: /-Ei 


jjjjij 

4:ii: 




;4^ : 


Vi-- 


-•4 "4 














a> 






fpi • 










- 


EhEh - 








Q_ 




ffife 




447T~ 










83 


\ETS7 






a> 


























2 






i||g§ 


:iS 














ife: 




o 






ill 


Ml 


















-£= 




-r 




rS/ZgSXv 










:“3..;v4 








O 












■jMlZr • 


-:€l- - 




-t' 








<u 

c 

cn 

cn 

cn 

cn 

cn 

■t— 

o 

EH EE 

o> 

on 


cn 


n- 


:: - - 

cn 

o 

cn 

00 

cn 

a> 

cn 

cn 

o> 

<D 






















.iSliV”’.' 




>« 


§H§ 






7 ;r.w 7 ': 






3§Hg 






XrXvviXy 






JZ 


I::^vF 


2 $ag§ 




•is- 


: 


!r * 




pH§§ 


" :.4h 7 . 


pllla 


EE'Fv 


xrEE 


a> 








_ -“."IT 


: -E‘M 


T_ 




:7:4SE-i 










2 
















FEU 


ExHEE 




“ V--1 










fXfXXv? 




•>”'•" v";-: 
















<D 










v 












x4';-; : '4;- v 


:?x4?4v> 


T3 




















'■X.XvHvX 




74xv2.-. 














.:i. 










W^M- 
















.v..:TS™ 








••• 






CL) 






4 £•••?'” 




















T3 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

^■b 

CO 

CO 


CO 





CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

TO 






•'XXXrv 


- -A " 






i-. £ i 


•••_.-•: ••:" 










£ 




.’ 










■ 


: 4M4 : ’ 


• -V 






~ 


o 
















pf 








mil 


Lt_ 


■£3j§ 






“w »2 






- _ : 


llfl 


W?M$? 


3- 


-■*• 




a> 






IBBI 




















2 














IMW 








y^V/y. 




o 


E|£§f| 






:s^g£ : : 






"7 .’ 


•tr - 


r- •• 








x; 




«iip 


•S-* 




..*• ?•• - 
















o 






t-4v 






EiS 














T3 

in 

co 

in 

CO 

in 

m 

m 


CO 

m 


CO 


«n 


kyM§& 

in 

in 

CO 

CO 

in 

CO 

CO 

m 

CO 

CD 


. VV.. 
























C 


y-??-v; T: 




Jill 




















0 ) 




r "• •: 














•jx: 


i 






>. 






----- 












- 4S 








p 




44hv 


- r*-- 


















igswiS*: 


♦ « 


" ” “! 


rr.r.T.-.Viv 


. T' 


....... 






ivHvAv"'. 






X'^rX-X-v 






IJJ 














H 2 EEE 




SjSvSvSv 


tvvf' 




•”7‘777‘ 
























































. 8 ;“'~ 




f 






- n •„ 








cn 


r 4.-.:S 








its 


: ;: 




■ST 





CD 

cn 

3 

O 





s? 


0 


%S' 




: 


r 


. - ■ 


SB 




■ 


55 

£ 

T— 

6 

V) 

CD 

Si 

(Q 

a 

co 



c 

< 


'E 

cn 

O 

c 

ca 

k_ 

X 

p 

!§•:• 


m 

2 

aj 

In 

k. 

<u 

JC 

ca 

E 

<u 

CO 

cn 

6 

« 

W 

00 

cn 

.31 

‘<U 

X 

cn 

"O 

o 

o 

c 

o 

'co 

a> 

♦-* 

c 

o 

c 

o 

E 

a> 

to 

2 

iZ 

6 

c 

<U 

> 

O 

6 

c 

cn 

2 

CD 

cn 

c 

< 

2 

CD 

X 

3 

O 

o 

6 

w 

CD 

1 

o 

6 

w 

CD 

CD 

QQ 

3) 

C 

O 

_l 

JZ 

T3 

c 

0 

E 

X 

3 

O 

*a 

6 

0 

cn 

'0 

2 

u_ 

CD 

cn 

0 

-0 

2 

ca 

xi 

i_ 

ca 

03 

CO 

5 

O 

1 

>. 

2 

"ca 

> 

c 

0 

S 

*3 

c 

cc 

< 

JC 

ca 

V- 

O 

3 

V- 

c 

O 

O 

2 

cn 

2 

cn 

a> 

cn 

o 

a> 


T3 

O 

E 

•c 

o 

£ 

0 

JZt 

3 

c 

CO 

c 

CO 

c 

CO 

E 

8 

ca 

Q- 

o 

CD 

CQ 

o 

o 

o 

o 

LU 

LU 

U- 

Li- 

u_ 

_i 

2 

2 

2 

2 

z 

X 

X 

cn 

V) 

cn 

cn 

GO 



48 










Figure 6-2. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Acetaldehyde 

(RfC=5.00 ppb) 




pueidn 

uopjoois 

UBjqooo-AaiiBA (uifs 
0||;jJBQ-BJBqjBQ BJUBS 
asop ubs 

SBSUB)|JV*O3SI0UBJJ UBS 

xnopiqny 
puoujqaju 
qoBag 6uo*| qpoN 
a)Bp)(BO-oisapow 
asnoqynoo-ojsapow 

paojaw c/> 

o> 

sa|a 6 uv son 00 

3AII0-0US3JJ 
IS JSijd-ousaij 
juoujajj 
ajuow 13 
uo(bq □ 
pjoouoo 
sjq6|aH sruiio 



b»S|A B|nqo 


UJaiBS-oomo 

HUBqjng 


piaijsja>|Bg 


uojinq jad sped 


49 


CARB Study 


























































































Figure 6-3. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Ethyl benzene 

(RfC= 2.30 E+2 ppb) 




sp pueidn 
ra uopfoois 
sp uBjqooo-AsjiBA |ui|S 
K) o|||Jjeo-ejeqjeg eiues 
Ki asop ues 

an SeSUBijJV-OOSpUBJd ubs 
ep xnopjqny 
puotuqoiy 

ip qoeag 6uo-| qyoN 
B3 IS HW-<Hsapow 
OB S3|a6uv SOI 
m is isjy-ousajj 


Sp PJOOUOQ 
Bp S)q6jan snfljo 
b^sja B|nqo 
uia|BS-oomo 
ifueqjng 
piaijsja^eg 


to 

CM 


uonijq jad sped 


Sites 




















Figure 6-4. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Ethylene dibromide 

(RfC=2.60 E-2 ppb) 




uo|||jq jad sped 


pueidfi 

uoppois 

uejqooo-AaiieA fui;s 
o|||jjBO-ejBqjeg bjubs 
asop ubs 

SBSUnfJV-OOSpUBJ.j ubs 

xnopiqny 

puoujqoia 

qoBag 6uoi qvioN 
IS qm-o^sapoH 
sa|a6uv so*| 

IS jsj| j-ousaj j 
juouiajj 
uo|bo 13 

PJOOUOQ 

sjm6|3h somo 
tqsjA B|nqo 
uja|BS-oo|M3 
)|UBqjng 
Piajjsja^sg 



51 


CARB Study 























































Figure 6-5. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for p-Dichlorobenzene 

(RfC=1.33 E+2 ppb) 



pueidn 



m o|||jjeo-ejeqjeg e;ues 
Ej asop ues 

C SBSUB^JV'OOSjDUBJ J UBS 

Q xnopiqny 


IS ifln-oisapow 
S3|d6uv SOI 

Ep IS 1 SJIJ- 0 US 3 JJ 


CO 


D Piausianeg 


uoj||;q jad sued 


52 


CARB Study 





















Figure 6-6. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Styrene 

(RfC=2.35 E+2 ppb) 


o 




S | S I s 

uo|||jq jad sued 


pueidfi 

uoppois 

UBjgooo-AdjiBA |UijS 


onjjJBQ-ejBqjBg b;ubs 
asop ubs 

SBSUBJJV-OOSpUBJJ UBS 

xnopjqng 
puoiuqoiu 
qoBag 6uoi ipjON 
IS iflfrl-oisapow 
saja6uv soq 

IS JSijJ-0US3JJ 
juoujajj 
uo|bo 13 
pjoauoo 
S}q6|3H snxiio 
bjsia einqo 
Ui3|BS*oo|qo 
)|UBqjng 
p|a|»SJa)(Bg 


53 


Sites 





















Figure 6-7. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Toluene 

(RfC=1.06 E+2 ppb) 



54 


CARB Study 





























Figure 6-8. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Chlorobenzene 

(PEC= 1.30 E+1 ppb) 


c 

CO 

cu 

vO 

0 s 


vP 

0 s 


05 

in 

o 

in 


05 


in 

CM 

• 

□ 

o 

O 

< 


CJL 



pueidn 

□C UOP(DOlS 
C UBJM0O0-Aa||BA (UijS 
CD OlljJJBQ-BJBqjBg Blues 
E dsop UBS 

CD SBSUB^JY*03SjOUBJ J UBS 

C xnopiqny 
D puoujqoju 
on ipsdg 6uo*| ihjon 
CO ISWl-oisapow 
D S9(36uv SOI 
(D IS ISJjj-ousajj 


CO 


uojinq jad sped 


55 


CARB Study 










































Figure 6-9. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for m-Xylene 

(PEC=1.38 ppb) 




uoiiijq jad sued 


S3|s6uv son 

pueidn 

uopfoojs 

uejgooo-Aa||BA juijs 

0||jjJB0*eJBqjBg bjubs 
3S0f UBS 

SBSUB)|JV*03SjOUBJJ UBS 

xnopiqny 
puoujqom 
qoBag 6uo*| iflJON 
IS Wl-oisapow 
IS isjy-ousajj 

JU0UJ3JJ 

uo(bo □ 

piOOUOQ 
S}q6|3H sn4!Q 
e»s|a B|nqo 
ui3|BS-oo!qo 
Xusqjng 
P|3j*SJ3XBg 



56 


CARB Study 


























































Figure 6-10. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Methyl Chloroform 

(PEC=1.74E+3 ppb) 


c. 

CO 

CD 

o' 


sfl 

S' 

sO 

o'- 

o> 

LO 

o 

in 


o> 

r-- 

in 

CSJ 

• 

□ 

o 

O 

< 



saia6uv son 


tc uop(oois 
D UBjqooo*Ao||BA |Ui|S 
C OHjiJBQ-BJBqJBg BJUBS 

C asop ubs 

C SBSUBUJV-OOSjDUBJJ UBS 

D xnopiqny 


IB IS qm-oisapow 
D is isjy-ousaid 


cn 


uojiijq Jdd sped 


57 


CARB Study 




























Figure 6-11. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for o-Xylene 

(PEC=1.38 ppb) 



58 


GARB Studv 












































































Figure 6-12. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for p-Xylene 

(PEC=1.38 ppb) 


cr 

03 

CD 

sP 

0 s 

vp 

O' 

vP 

O' 

o' 

o> 

in 

o 

in 


03 


in 

CM 

• 

□ 

o 

O 

< 




pueidn 

U0W30IS 

UBjgooo-AafiBA (tuts 

oiiujBQ-BJBqjBg Bjues 
asop ubs 

SBSUBl(JV*OOSpUBJJ UBS 

xnopjqny 
puoujqojy 
tpeag 6uo-| i#jon 
IS mn-opapow 
saiaSuy son 

is ISJIJ-OUS9JJ 
JUOUJ9JJ 

uo|BO 13 

PJO3UO0 

smfipH snflio 
BJSIA Binqo 
U»|BS-O3|M0 
jjuBqjng 
piaijsja^Bg 


<n 

o> 

CO 


uojiijq jad sped 


59 


CARB Study 








































Table 6-3. CARB Hazard Quotient by Site and Pollutant 


E 
>_ 
o 

±3 O 

° o 

-C 

o 



El 








•Jv'.-.v. /’ ’ 



f§§§§ 


±$QrT 


jggij 


i 







W§S 

WWy 






■ . 




:• T l- 




Tf 

i 

co 

. 

O" 

1 

1 

O" 

> 

T 

i 

CO 

1 

"7 

CO 

*a- 

CO 

^a- 

co 


O" 

rr 

O’ 

■o- 

CO 

LU 

C\J 

s 

LU 

o> 

K 

LU 

in 

Ui 

CO 

• 

LU 

■O' 

LU 

p 

UJ 

O) 

tu 

o 

th 

CO 

LU 

in 

LU 

CO 

UJ 

o 

til 

CD 

LU 

O 

LU 

o> 

Llll 

CO 

■ 

UJ 

o 

LLl 

O 

CO 

CO 


co 

c\i 

CM 

CD 


CM 

CM 

ui 


cd 

■d 

in 

in 

cd 

05 

cd 



05 

c 

J0> 

o 

+ 

o 

4 * 

• f 

« 

» 

i 

>% 

LU 

LU 

LU 

UJ 

LU 

UJ 

LU 

X 

r-- 

t- 

05 

o 

r~- 

I-- 

CM 

1 

E 


CM 

cd 

id 


cd 

cd 


LU LU 
r-. -r- 


Ul 

m 


T- T"“ 


111 

o> 

co 


o 

+ 

3 V 

V 

o 

+ 

O 

+ 

• 

V 

LU 

UJ 

LU 

LU 

LU 

LU 

LU 

LU 

CO 

CM 

CD 

o 

CM 

CM 


T— 


<r~ CD 

cd 

T-J 


in 

CD 


+ 

LU 


! -§ 

E 

t! 

UJ •- 


• 

▼— 

f 

▼7 

T— 

■»— 

•r- 

▼— 

1 — 

T— 

t- 

LU 

UJ 

LLJ 

LU 

LLJ 

LU 

LLJ 

LU 

1 

LU 

LU 

O" 

T— 



CM 

CM 


!■'- 

CM 

CM 

CM 

CM 

Csi 

CO 

CM 

CM 

c\i 

CM 

CM 

CM 


lu 

in 

04 


LLl LU LU LLl 111 111 n‘l l i*l 

cvjoinr^oioojcM 

cmcmcmcmcmcmcmcm 


co 

c\j 
















CO 

• 








•mg 






CO 

1 

CO 

«? 

<? 

CO 

«? 

CO 

«? 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

LU 

p 

LU 

p 

UJ 

p 

LU 

CM 

UI 

LU 

05 

UJ 

in 

LLJ 

05 

UI 

CD 

LU 

GO 

UJ 

in 

LLJ 

in 

1 

LU 

O 

UJ 

■* w 


CM 

cd 

CM 

CM 

CM 

■>— 


CM 

CM 


CM 

cm' 


a) 

c 

<u 


<u 

xi 


LU 


CO 

1 

co 

a 

co 

<? 

CO 

LU 

UJ 

LU 

UJ 

LU 

O- 

p 

p 



cd 

^a- 


1— 

CM 


CO 


CD 

c 

05 

N 

C 

co 

<? 

co 

<7 

05 

ri 

LLJ 

UJ 

LLl 

UJ 

O 

O 


p 

CD 

O 

■d 


O' 

CO 

IE 

0 




111 


CO 

LLJ 

O; 

d 


co 

LLl 

O 

d 


CO 

• 

«? 

*? 

«? 

CO 

<? 

LU 

UJ 

UI 

UI 

LLJ 

LU 

CD 

04 

p 

p 

CM 

O 

cd 


^a* 

■o- 

O' 

d 


CO 

1 

*? 

co 

1 

«? 

co 

l 

CO 

a 

UJ 

LU 

LU 

UJ 

LU 

UI 

▼7 

p 

O 

rr 

O 

p 

-o 1 

d 

O' 

cd 

d 

d 


LU 


CD 

-a 

JO 

a> 

2 

TO 

a> 

o 


LU 

LO 

CO 


1 

LU 

p 

• 

UJ 

O- 

• 

LU 

CM 

• 

UI 

CM 

LU 

OO 

LU 

CD 

LU 

1 

UJ 

CO 

LLJ 

•o- 

LLJ 

0 

LLJ 

p 

. LLJ 
CM 

1 

UI 

CO 

1 

UJ 

p 

I 

UJ 

cm’ 

CM 

cd 

cd 

cd 

cd 

cd 


in 

cd 

■d 

cd 

•d 

d 

CM 


p 

O' 


CM 

CO 


•o- 

CO 


CO 


CD 

c\j 


CO 

CO 


LO 

CO 


2 


E 

05 

re 

05 


re 

co 

</> 


CO 

> 

k. 

re 

6 

(U 

a> 

-s 

0 

3 

TO 


!c 


m 

CD 

O 

O 


CO 

CD 

a> 


CO 

«) > 


25 


£ 3 
S o 


a> 

co 

3 

o a> 

5 «3 

tr T3 


re 


(A 

3 


■O c O* *- U- O 

5 .a = g 6 6 

o re o g c c 

_ C O 5 t « « 

.t- o Z_ 3 g> « 

OOUIUilLU.il! 


o 

re 

<u 

03 

CD 


CO 

re 

co 

c 

J2 

6 

o 

CO 


I s 

re 

O o 
re o 
re i 


05 

CD 


6 

6 

w 

• 

0 

c 

0 

■a 

c 

X 

3 

0 

c 

05 

XI 

<5 

0 ) 

c: 

C 

< 

TJ 

05 

O 

"co 

05 

CO 

05 

CO 

05 

_i 

0 

E 

0 

*0 

£ 

(/) 

O 

“D 

CQ 

CO 

re 

> 

0 

2 

CO 

0 
—1 

k_ 

a> 

s 

T3 

O 

S 

TJ 

O 

S 

■0 

0 

s 

C 

0 

z 

0 

cc 

X3 

3 

CC 

c 

re 

CO 

c 

re 

CO 

c 

re 

CD 

E 

CO 

0 

0 

25 


•a 

c 

CO 

CL 


60 


















Table 6-3. CARB Hazard Quotient by Site and Pollutant (cont.) 



61 





































































































































































7.0 COLUMBUS, OHIO 


During 1989, the Columbus Field Study was conducted to measure ambient levels of 
79 air contaminants within the Columbus, Ohio urban area. The effort was headed by the 
Methods Research and Development Division of EPA's AREAL, with contractor support 
from Battelle Laboratories. For details concerning the study design, measurement 
methods, and sample and statistical analyses, the reader is referred to a report entitled 
Variability and Source Attribution of Hazardous Air Pollutants - Columbus Field Study . 13 

During June and July of 1989, measurements of air contaminants were made at six 
sites within the urban area, designated as Sites 1 through 6. Data were collected for 
VOCs, carbonyls, particle elements, and extractable organics every 3 hours over three 2- 
day intervals to assess spatial variability. Hourly data for formaldehyde and automated 
gas chromatography samples of VOCs were also collected and two sites included samples 
integrated over 24-hour periods. However, only results corresponding to 3-hour samples 
were analyzed in this report. 

All VOC samples were collected by pumping ambient air into a trap consisting of 
stainless steel tubing packed with silanized glass beads, while carbonyl compounds (i.e., 
aldehydes and ketone) were collected using a 2,4-DNPH cartridge enclosed in an impinger 
to avoid interference by atmospheric ozone. All particle samples were collected on 
"streaker" particle samplers equipped with motor-driven rotating circular filters. Volatile 
organic compound sample analysis was performed using a GC equipped with both a FID 
and a mass selective detector system (MSC). The latter system enables the monitoring of 
only preselected ions, rather than scanning a range of masses continuously. This results 
in increased sensitivity and improved quantitative analysis of the data set. Aldehydes 
and ketones were analyzed using HPLC. Metals were analyzed with a proton-induced 
X-ray emission (PIXE) system. The resulting X-ray energy spectrum is analyzed to 
determine the elemental composition of the sample. 

Quality assurance activities included single and multipoint calibration checks of the 
GC/FID and GC/MSC system. The HPLC system was calibrated daily using DNPH 
derivative standards. Duplicate sampling was also performed to separate the variability 
due to sampling and analysis from the actual variability of HAPs in the air. 

Inhalation unit risk factors have been established for 19 of the HAPs monitored in 
this study, and additive lifetime cancer risk is presented by site for each of these 
compounds in Figure 7-1. In this case, polycyclic organic matter (POM) refers to the sum 
of the concentration of organic material extracted from a particulate matter sample using 
both extracting solvents cyclohexane and dichloromethane. This method was used so that 
cancer potency values derived from the extractable organic matter (EOM) fraction of the 
particulate sample could be applied. 14 Figures C7-1 through C7-6 in Appendix C provide 
lifetime cancer risk for the 19 pollutants for the 6 sites. Table 7-1 presents the values for 
calculated cancer risk, and Table 7-2 ranks the pollutants based on decreasing cancer 
risk. 


A National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) has been established for 
ambient concentrations of lead. This health benchmark is graphed relative to monitoring 
data statistics for 3-hour lead samples in Figure 7-2. Inhalation reference concentrations 


63 



are available for 13 compounds, and PECs have been developed for 8 pollutants. Figures 
7-3 through 7-15 present monitored values relative to the RfCs, and Figures 7-16 through 
7-23 display the monitored values relative to the PECs. Hazard quotients were calculated 
to assess the noncancer risk associated with these pollutants: these values are listed in 
Table 7-3. 

Data Contact: 

Larry Cupitt 

US Environmental Protection Agency 

Atmospheric Research and Exposure Assessment Laboratory 
MD-77 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 


64 


Figure 7-1. Cancer Risk by Site and Pollutant for the Columbus Study 



3(S!J aui!ld}|| |enp;A;pu! (}uein||odji|nm ‘-a-fl dApippv 


65 












































































































































































Table 7-1. Columbus Cancer Risk by Site and Pollutant 



T 

~2~ 

~T~ 

~ 

~ 

~ 

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 

9.95E-06 

9.95E-06 

9.95E-06 

9.95E-06 

9.95E-0G 

9.95E-06 

1,1,2-Trichloroethane 

2.18E-06 

2.18E-06 

2.18E-06 

2.18E-06 

2.18E-06 

2.18E-06 

1,1-Dichloroethene 

4.96E-06 

4.96E-06 

4.96E-06 

4.96E-06 

4.96E-06 

4.96E-06 

1,2-Dibromoethane 

4.23E-05 

4.23E-05 

4.23E-05 

4.23E-05 

4.23E-05 

4.23E-05 

1,2-Dichloroethane 

4.35E-06 

4.26E-06 

4.66E-06 

5.81 E-06 

3.49E-06 

3.61 E-06 

Acetaldehyde 

6.08E-06 

4.84E-06 

4.31 E-06 

6.35E-06 

3.91 E-06 

5.21 E-06 

Benzene 

1.76E-05 

1.28E-05 

1.35E-05 

1.33E-05 

1.35E-05 

1.12E-05 

Carbon tetrachloride 

1.15E-05 

1.20E-05 

1.13E-05 

1.15E-05 

1.15E-05 

1.15E-05 

Chromium 

3.50E-05 

6.52E-06 

2.22E-05 

2.06E-05 

8.33E-06 


Dichloromethane 

9.31 E-07 

1.78E-06 

5.02E-07 

1.27E-06 

5.76E-07 

4.03E-07 

Formaldehyde • 3 hour 

6.57E-05 

4.69E-05 

3.42E-05 

5.28E-05 

4.13E-05 

4.90E-05 

Hexachforobutadiene 

5.87E-06 

5.87E-06 

5.87E-06 

5.87E-06 

5.87E-06 

5.87E-06 

Methyl chloride 

1.71E-06 

1.80E-06 

1.78E-06 

1.88E-06 

1.90E-06 

1.72E-06 

Nickel 


2.57E-07 



8.89E-08 

* ,I * 

POM 

6.13E-04 

6.41 E-04 

3.37E-04 

6.05E-04 

5.60E-04 

4.79E-04 

Tetrachloroethene 

7.91 E-07 

921 E-07 

1.77E-06 

6.46E-07 

6.09E-07 

4.90E-07 

Trichloroethene 

1.13E-06 

3.43E-07 

3.71 E-07 

5.06E-07 

1.33E-06 

7.42E-07 

Trichloromethane 

7.46E-06 

3.77E-06 

3.29E-06 

3.56E-06 

3.20E-06 

2.81 E-06 

Vinyl chloride 

7.17E-08 

7.17E-08 

7.17E-08 

7.17E-08 

7.17E-08 

7.17E-08 


66 











Table 7-2. Columbus Cancer Risk Ranking by Site and Pollutant 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 

7 

6 

7 

7 

6 

6 

1,1,2-Trichloroethane 

13 

13 

13 

13 

13 

12 

1,1-Dichloroethene 

11 

9 

9 

11 

9 

9 

1,2-Dibromoethane 

3 

3 

2 

3 

2 

3 

1,2-Dichloroethane 

12 

11 

10 

10 

11 

10 

Acetaldehyde 

9 

10 

11 

8 

10 

8 

Benzene 

5 

4 

5 

5 

4 

5 

Carbon tetrachloride 

6 

5. 

6 

6 

5 

4 

Chromium 

4 

7 

4 

4 

7 

18 

Dichloromethane 

16 

15 

16 

15 

17 

16 

Formaldehyde 

2 

2 

3 

2 

3 

2 

Hexachlorobutadiene 

10 

8 

8 

9 

8 

7 

Methyl chloride 

14 

14 

14 

14 

14 

13 

Nickel 

19 

18 

19 

19 

18 

18 

POM 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Tetrachloroethene 

17 

16 

15 

16 

16 

15 

Trichloroethene 

15 

17 

17 

17 

15 

14 

Trichloromethane 

8 

12 

12 

12 

12 

11 

Vinyl chloride 

18 

19 

18 

18 

19 

17 


67 


















Figure 7-2. NAAQS and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Lead 

(NAAQS=1.50 E-1 ug/cu m) 



68 


Columbus Study 


















Figure 7-3. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for 1,2,4- 
Trichlorobenzene (PEC=2.69 E+1 ppb) 


c 

03 

03 

sO 

vP 

o"' 

vO 

o' 

03 

LO 

o 

LO 


03 


LO 

CM 

• 

□ 

o 

o 

< 


o 



Q co 


O CD 


CO 


O o 


D - 


Q <x 


uojinq jad sped 


Columbus Study 

















Figure 7-4. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for 1,2-Dibromoethane 

(RfC=2.60 E-2 ppb) 



70 


Columbus Study 




















Figure 7-5. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for 1,2-Dichloropropane 

(RfC=1.30 ppb) 



71 


Columbus Study 





















Figure 7-6. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for 3-Chloropropene 

(RfC=3.19 E-1 ppb) 



72 


Columbus Study 






































Figure 7-7. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Acetaldehyde 

(RfC=5.00 ppb) 



73 


Columbus Study 


































Figure 7-8. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Acrolein 

(RfC=8.72 E-3 ppb) 



74 


Columbus Study 





























Figure 7-9. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Ethyl benzene 

(RfC=2.30 E+2 ppb) 



75 


Columbus Study 














Figure 7-10. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Ethyl chloride 

(RfC=4.93 E+3 ppb) 




uonuq jad sued 



















Figure 7-11. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Manganese 

(RfC=4.00 E-1 ug/cu m) 


c 

CO 

<u 

■vP 

Vp 

V? 

OD 

CO 

LO 

O 

LO 

-> 

o> 


to 

C\J 

• 

□ 

o 

o 

<1 


o 



GO «£> 


GO 


CO 


GB «■» 


K* — 


jajaui ojqno jad suibj6ojo!w 


77 


Columbus Study 

















Figure 7-12. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Methyl bromide 

(RfC=1.29 ppb) 



78 


flnliimhus 



















Figure 7-13. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for p-Dichlorobenzene 

(RfC=1.33 E+2 ppb) 




090000 
N O OO <C » N 


uojiijq jad sped 

















Figure 7-14. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Styrene 

(RfC=2.35 E+2 ppb) 




C CO 


C in 


CO 


□ co 


□ - 


C CM 


uonnq jed sped 


Columbus Study 















Figure 7-15. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Toluene 

(RfC=1.06 E+2 ppb) 




E «» 


C/3 


uojinq jad sued 


81 


Columbus Study 
















Figure 7-16. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for 1,1,1- 

Trichloroethane (RfC=1.74 E+3 ppb) 



82 


Columbus Study 


















Figure 7-17. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for 1,1-Dichloroethane 

(PEC=1.33 ppb) 


c. 

00 

O) 

sP 


sO 

0 s 

o' 

CD 

to 

O 

to 

IE 

CD 

D- 

in 

CVJ 

• 

□ 

o 

O 

< 


o 



CO 


uoj||jq Jdd sped 


83 


Columbus Study 




















Figure 7-18. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Benzyl chloride 

(PEC=4.25 E-2 ppb) 


> 



84 


Columbus Sf.nH 



































Figure 7-19. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Chlorine 

(PEC=17.0 ug/cu m) 



85 


Columbus Study 





















Figure 7-20. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Chlorobenzene 

(PEC=1.30 E+1 ppb) 




uojinq jad sped 


86 
















Figure 7-21. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for m/p-Xylene 

(PEC=1.38 ppb) 




87 


Columbus Study 


































Figure 7-22. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for o-Xylene 

(PEC=1.38 ppb) 




uojinq J9d sped 


Sites 





































Figure 7-23. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Propanal 

(PEC=3.79 ppb) 



m 


N 


uojinq jad sped 


89 


Columbus Study 

















Table 7-3. Columbus Hazard Quotient by Site and Pollutant 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

1,1,1-Trichloroethane 

5.1 E-4 

3.8E-4 

4.4E-4 

5.5E-4 

3.2E-4 

3.9E4 

1,1-Dichloroethane 

1.9E-2 

1.9E-2 

1.9E-2 

1.9E-2 

1.9E-2 

1.9E-2 

1,2,4-T richlorobenzene 

1.2E-3 

9.3E-4 

9.3E-4 

9.3E-4 

9.3E-4 

9.3E-4 

1,2-Dibromoethane 

9.6E-1 

9.6E-1 

9.6E-1 

9.6E-1 

9.6E-1 

9.6E-1 

1,2-Dichloropropane 

1.9E-2 

1.9E-2 

1.9E-2 

1.9E-2 

1.9E-2 

1.9E-2 

3-Chloropropene 

’ 1.8E-1 

3.0E-1 

2.0E-1 

2.3E-1 

2.2E-1 

3.0E-1 

Acetaldehyde 

3.1E-1 

2.4E-1 

2.2E-1 

3.2E-1 

2.0E-1 

2.6E-1 

Acrolein-3 hour 

2.7E+1 

1.7E+1 

4.5E+1 

5.7E+1 

1.7E+1 

1.7E+1 

Benzyl chloride 

1.1E+1 

7.8E+0 

6.9E+0 

7.8E+0 

7.1 E+0 

8.7E+0 

Chlorine • 3 hour 

2.4E-5 

5.1 E-4 

5.8E-4 

1.4E-3 

7.8E-4 

0.0E+0 

Chlorobenzene 

1.9E-3 

1.9E-3 

1.9E-3 

1.9E-3 

2.1 E-3 

1.9E-3 

Ethyl benzene 

1.4E-3 

♦ 

1.0E-3 

1.1E-3 

1.1E-3 

1.3E-3 

1.1 E-3 

Ethyl chloride 

5.1E-6 

5.1E-6 

5.1E-6 

5.1 E-6 

6.2E-6 

5.1 E-6 

Lead - 3 hour 

3.7E-3 

5.0E-3 

6.8E-3 

4.0E-3 

i.. • • • ji • 

6.0E-3 

5.5E-3 

m/p-Xylene 

8.0E-1 

5.6E-1 

6.1 E-1 

6.4E-1 

6.8E-1 

5.6E-1 

Manganese 

4.4E-3 

7.8E-3 

8.8E-3 

4.5E-3 

4.1 E-3 

1.6E-3 

Methyl bromide 

1.9E-2 

1.9E-2 

1.9E-2 

1.9E-2 

1.9E-2 

1.9E-2 

o-Xylene 

2.9E-1 

2.1 E-1 

2.3E-1 

2.5E-1 

2.5E-1 

2.0E-1 

p-Dichlorobenzene 

2.2E-4 

1.9E-4 

1.9E-4 

1.9E-4 

1.9E-4 

1.9E-4 

Propanal 

5.6E-2 

5.3E-2 

5.4E-2 

5.3E-2 

5.5E-2 

7.0E-2 

Styrene 

2.7E-4 

1.7E-4 

1.7E-4 

2.0E-4 

1.8E-4 

2.2E-4 

Toluene 

1.6E-2 

1.2E-2 

1.2E-2 

1.4E-2 

1.3E-2 

1.3E-2 


90 











8.0 LAKE MICHIGAN URBAN AIR TOXICS STUDY (LMUATS) 


During the summer of 1991, a monitoring program was carried out in the lower Lake 
Michigan area to quantify atmospheric concentrations of polychlorinated biphenyls 
(PCBs), pesticides, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), VOCs, particle mass, and 
trace elements. A paper entitled, "Lake Michigan Urban Air Toxics Study - Design and 
Overview", was published by EPA's AREAL to provide a description of the study. 

Monitoring results for pesticides, PCBs and metals were obtained on diskette from 
AREAL. Twelve-hour samples for ten trace elements were taken daily beginning July 8 
through August 9, 1991 at three separate sites: the Illinois Institute of Technology (IIT), 
Kankakee, IL (OKAI), and South Haven, MI (OSHM). Monitoring for pesticides and 
PCBs took place at the IIT site beginning July 8 through July 22, 1991. 

Trace element data were obtained for both fine (< 2.5 pm) and coarse (2.5 - 10 pm) 
particles. These two fractions were then added to estimate particulate concentrations 
< 10 pm in diameter for each element. For each metal, the minimum detection levels 
were estimated to be 1/3 of the uncertainty associated with a blank sample for both fine 
and coarse fractions. The uncertainty will vary slightly from sample to sample, but the 
uncertainty associated with the blanks can be used as an approximation. Particulate 
concentrations were reported in ng/m 3 , and converted to pg/m 3 before comparing with 
health benchmarks. 

Initial concentrations were reported in picograms per microliter (pg/pl), then 
adjusted to picograms per cubic meter (pg/m 3 ) depending on the volume of air pushed 
through the filter apparatus. For the PCB samples, multi-chlorinated congeners were 
identified relative to a radioactive standard when possible. However, even if all of the 
congeners could have been identified, congener-specific cancer unit risks are not available. 
For this reason, a cancer risk for total PCBs was estimated by first adding concentrations 
for all detectable classes (C1-C1 10 ) of PCBs before applying the cancer potency score. 

Figure 8-1 presents average cancer risk by pollutant for the IIT site. Inhalation unit 
risks are available for two pollutants: PCBs and hexachlorobenzene, a pesticide. 
Individual lifetime risk due to total PCBs is estimated to be 4.71 E-06, whereas the 
lifetime risk due to hexachlorobenzene is estimated to be 8.67 E-07. 

The NAAQS for ambient concentrations of lead is graphed relative to monitoring 
data for lead in Figure 8-2. Health benchmarks are also available for chlorine and 
manganese. Figures 8-3 and 8-4 present the RfC and PEC for these particulates relative 
to ambient monitoring statistics. Hazard quotients were calculated to assess the 
noncancer risk associated with these pollutants; these values are listed in Table 8-1. 

Data Contact: 

4 

Gary Evans 

US Environmental Protection Agency 

Atmospheric Research and Exposure Assessment Laboratory, MD-56 
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 


91 


Figure 8-1. Lake Michigan Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant 


Tv 

cp 

LJ 

rs 

sD 

CD 


T" .. 

,' s '•\ v - 


• . 

1' s- ' ; 

, N < - . 





•^4 ^- •• 

• •• • 

a'-\ y s V '.'V- VV> ^-J«'\\ << ^ ft V 

:vXs<rJ''V.-A -^^•v.-ft-'"'' : > 

' •••••■' . ' • " ' ■: 


(jj(v.y : ;> s .^<S.-y 


. <■ x .;•> J • ; . .. '' . V.. ;.V.r.-„^ <: ;•. - .■•' v ' 1 ' - ' W i WMv i -H.;.M. ; .WA 1 . 1 ^ 1 1' . 1 '■ & , | A | ' A * 1 !- 1 . 1 U ■ . ■' . i■ .mil H—w 

* '■ • • ' ■' '•■ 'Nvy^ . >,;» ■>**■ > ■ 4 '• . v";4 < .'■> 

' ' - - . ■' 4' '/••■• '•' " -' 

' 

-: ••' - ' ' .-; ' -•- -• • •••• -" .. .. ' • • ' 

> ,,' < - X - % > » >. ** *-> s s\ \ s ~v\. 

; ■ ; ■ . ■ . ' ' ■ . ' ' 



to 

9 

<o 

9 

to 

9 

to 

9 

to 

9 

to 

9 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

Ul 

UJ 

o 

o 

o 

in 

§ 

o 

in 

§ 

o 

in 

If) 



CO 

CO 

oi 


tO 

9 

uu 

o 

o 

oi 


to 

9 

OI 

o 

m 


tO 

9 

Ul 

o 

o 


r«~ 

9 

ID 

§ 

if) 


^su J90UB0 aujji9*j| |enpjAjpu| 


o 

uj 

o 

o 

o 


92 


Polychlorinated biphenyls Hexachlorobenzene 





























































Figure 8-2. NAAQS and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Lead 

(NAAQS=1.50 ug/cu m) 



93 


Lake Michigan Study 

















Figure 8-3. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Manganese 

(RfC=4.00 E-1 ug/cu m) 



Oi. 


o 


0 ) 

03 



s 

co 

X 

o> 

in 

,ts 

O 

CO 


jaiaui oiqno jad suiej6oi0!^ 

















Figure 8-4. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Chlorine 

(PEC=17.0 ug/cu m) 



95 


Lake Michigan Study 



















Table 8-1. Lake Michigan Hazard Quotient by Site and Pollutant 



IIT 

OSHM 

OKAI 

Chlorine 

2.81 E-03 

1.68E-03 

1.93E-03 

Lead 

1.69E-02 

6.17E-03 

1.12E-02 

Manganese 

5.49E-02 

2.85E-02 

2.85E-02 


96 








9.0 NONOCCUPATIONAL PESTICEDE EXPOSURE STUDY (NOPES) 


The Nonoccupational Pesticide Exposure Study (NOPES) involved EPA's AREAL, 
and State and local officials in Florida and Massachusetts. Research Triangle Institute 
and Southwest Research Institute also contributed to the study effort. The overall 
objective of the NOPES was to estimate the levels of nonoccupational exposure to selected 
household pesticides through air, drinking water, food, and dermal contact. In January of 
1990, the EPA published a report describing the design and results of the study 
(EPA/600/3-90/003). 15 

The data collection effort was conducted in three phases: 

• Phase I - Summer 1986 in Jacksonville, FL. 

• Phase II - Spring 1987 in Jacksonville, FL, and Springfield/Chicopee, MA. 

• Phase III - Winter 1988 in Jacksonville, FL, and Springfield/Chicopee, MA. 

The study collected indoor air, personal air, and outdoor air samples. Only the data 
corresponding to outdoor air samples were used in this report. Seasonal daily mean 
concentrations were averaged using a seasonal weighting to provide an approximate 
annual average of daily mean concentrations. The annual average for Springfield/ 
Chicopee may be underestimated because samples were not taken during the summer, the 
season which generally had the highest reported concentrations in Jacksonville. 

Outdoor air samples were collected about 1.5 meters above the ground in an area of 
high family use. The samples were collected by using a constant-flow air pump to draw 
air through a clean PUF plug for a 24-hour sampling period. Extracts from the PUF 
plugs were concentrated and analyzed by both GC/electron capture detection (ECD), and 
GC/MS/multiple ion detection (MID) analysis. Analytical quality control steps were 
followed throughout the analysis activities. 

Due to the location of the air samplers, caution must be used in equating the outdoor 
residential concentrations with ambient concentrations. Pesticide levels reported were 
intended to provide a measure of the occupant's outdoor exposure, not necessarily an 
average ambient concentration. Concentrations of these pesticides are likely to be higher 
in outdoor residential air when compared to ambient air per the NOPES investigation. 
Insufficient data existed to assign minimum detection levels for each compound, since 
many outdoor air readings were much lower than what was reported as a general 
detection limit for personal, indoor, and outdoor air samples. Since the concentrations 
and corresponding health risks are assumed to be a conservative estimate, zero values 
were used for averaging (i.e., zero values were not replaced with the value corresponding 
to 1/2 of the mdl). 

Figure 9-1 presents average cancer risk by pollutant for the NOPES study. 
Inhalation unit risks are available for four pesticides: captan, chlordane, heptachlor, and 
hexachlorobenzene. However, zero levels of captan were reported for this study. Tables 
9-1 and 9-2 present the individual lifetime cancer risk and rank the risk associated with 
each pesticide, respectively. Figure 9-2 presents the RfG for dichlorvos compared to 
ambient monitoring statistics. 


97 




in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

to 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

s 

o 

in 

§ 

s 

8 

o 

o 

CO 

oi 

ci 

1" 


in 


MSu aumajii lenpjAjpuj (luepinochiinuj ‘-a j) aAmppv 


98 


Jacksonville Springfield/Chicopee 

Site 





























Table 9-1. NOPES Cancer Risk by Site and Pollutant 



Jacksonville 

Springfield/Chicopee 

Hexachlorobenzene 

2.53E-08 

■- 

Heptachlor 

1.77E-05 

2.21 E-07 

Chlordane 

7.84E-06 

9.55E-07 


Table 9-1. NOPES Cancer Risk Ranking by Site and Pollutant 



Jacksonville 

Springfield/Chicopee 

Hexachlorobenzene 

3 


Heptachlor 

1 

2 

Chlordane 

2 

1 


99 





























Figure 9-1. Cancer Risk by Site and Pollutant for the NOPES Study 



in 

in 

in 

9 

9 

9 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

§ 

o 

in 

§ 

CO 

oi 

ni 


Msu auipeju lenpjAjpu; 


in 

9 

Ui 

o 

in 


in 

9 

UJ 


to 

9 

UJ 

o 

o 

in 


()uein||od!)|niu ‘-a j) aApippv 


o 


9 

UJ 


8 


o 



98 


Jacksonville Springfield/Chicopee 

Site 



































Table 9-1. NOPES Cancer Risk by Site and Pollutant 



Jacksonville 

Springfield/Chicopee 

Hexachlorobenzene 

2.53E-08 

- 

Heptachlor 

1.77E-05 

. 

2.21 E-07 

Chlordane 

7.84E-06 

9.55E-07 


Table 9-1. NOPES Cancer Risk Ranking by Site and Pollutant 



Jacksonville 

Springfield/Chicopee 

Hexachlorobenzene 

3 


Heptachlor 

1 

2 

Chlordane 

2 

1 


99 












Figure 9-2. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for 

Dichlorvos (RfC=5.0 E-1 ug/m3) 



100 


Jacksonville 





















10.0 OHIO DIOXIN/FURAN STUDY 


During November and December of 1987, several sites in Ohio were involved in the 
collection of air samples for determination of PCDD and PCDF concentrations. Two 
consecutive 3-day samples were collected at an industrial site within a 1 km radius of 
both a municipal refuse-derived fuel power plant and sewage sludge incinerator in 
Columbus, Ohio (sites COL1, COL2). Two one-week samples were collected coincidentally 
in Akron, Ohio, 2 km downwind of a municipal incinerator (sites AK1, AK2). In addition, 
the AK1 extract was analyzed twice to measure the reproducibility of the analytical 
system (designated as AK1 rep). A three-day sample was collected at a high traffic 
density highway site in central Columbus (site 17& 1-71). Finally, a 1-week sample was 
collected at the rural site of Waldo, 45 km north of Columbus. 16 

Polyurethane foam samplers equipped with a glass fiber filter and sorbent trap were 
used to collect particulate and vapor-phase PCDDs and PCDFs, respectively. All native 
dioxins and furans collected from the ambient air were quantified against a series of 
isotopically-labeled internal standards. The PUF samples, fortified with the internal 
standards, were extracted using benzene before analysis employing HRGC/HRMS. 

Figure 10-1 presents the additive lifetime cancer risk for all dioxin congeners (total 
dioxins) and all furan congeners (total furans). Estimated risk for total dioxins and total 
furans accounts for all congeners that possess an inhalation unit risk. All other 
congeners (those without cancer risk factors) are assumed to present no cancer risk. 

Table 10-1 presents the values for congener-specific cancer risk by site. 


101 


Figure 10-1. Cancer Risk by Site and Pollutant for the Ohio Study 



102 


00+3000 































































Table 10-1. Ohio Cancer Risk by Site and Pollutant 



AKI 

AKI rep 

AK2 

COL1 

C0L2 

17 & 1-71 

Waldo 

2,3,7,8-TCDD 



3.30E-06 

2.64E-06 

1.98E-07 


1.35E-05 

3.96E-06 

2.48E-06 

9.57E-07 

2,3,7,8-PeCDD 

2.23E-06 

9.08E-07 

2.81 E-07 

4.95E-07 

3.88E-07 

6.77E-07 

2.72E-07 

2,3,7,8-HxCDD 

4.52E-07 

4.42E-07 

3.37E-07 


1.39E-07 

5.33E-07 

1.58E-07 

2.67E-07 

2,3,7,8-HpCDD 

1.72E-07 

1.75E-07 

1.88E-07 

8.58E-08 

1.72E-07 

1.06E-07 

7.92E-08 

2,3,7,8-OCDD 

3.30E-08 

3.96E-08 

3.96E-08 

1.68E-08 

3.63E-08 

3.17E-08 

1.65E-08 

Total Dioxins 

6.18E-06 

4.20E-06 

1.04E-06 

1.43E-05 

5.09E-06 

3.45E-06 

1.59E-06 

2,3,7,8-TCDF 

6.60E-07 

6.60E-07 

6.27E-07 

1.06E-06 

1.62E-06 

2.15E-07 

4.29E-07 

1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 

4.29E-08 

5.45E-08 

4.79E-08 

5.28E-08 

9.41 E-08 

2.97E-08 

3.47E-08 

2,3,4,7,8'PeCDF 

5.28E-07 

6.93E-07 

5.61 E-07 

1.90E-07 

1.47E-06 

2.97E-07 

2.72E-07 

2,3,7,8-HxCDF 

7.00E-07 

4.87E-07 

6.92E-07 

6.73E-07 

1.93E-06 

2.24E-07 

7.03E-07 

2,3,7,8-HpCDF 

8.83E-08 

8.28E-08 

8.28E-08 

6.85E-08 

1.60E-07 

3.09E-08 

7.89E-08 

2,3,7,8-OCDF 

Total Furans 

6.27E-09 

5.61E-09 

5.94E-09 

5.12E-09 

6.93E-09 

2.64E-09 

2.54E-09 

1.52E-06 

2.03E-06 

1.98E-06 

2.02E-06 

2.05E-06 

5.28E-06 

7.99E-07 


103 





























•• 














. 








■ 




















































11.0 SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 


Ambient toxics monitoring was carried out at four sites within the SCAQMD from 
January 1986 through December 1993. An additional site was established at Pico Rivera 
to monitor for aldehydes beginning in August 1993. Twenty-four hour ambient samples 
were taken approximately every 10 days (up to 2 weeks) for 15 toxic air pollutants. 
However, the Burbank and Hawthorne sites only monitored for 13 HAPs. The MDL 
decreased over the duration of the study for some compounds, most likely as a result of 
improvements in sensitivity of the detection equipment. 

Inhalation unit risk factors have been established for eleven HAPs, and additive 
lifetime cancer risk is presented by site for each of the HAPs in Figure 11-1. Graphs for 
individual sites presenting lifetime risk for each pollutant are provided in Appendix C, 
Figures Cl 1-1 through Cl 1-5. The value of the cancer risk for each of the pollutants is 
presented in Table 11-1, and Table 11-2 ranks these values in order of decreasing lifetime 
cancer risk. 

Figures 11-2, 11-3, and 11-4 present RfCs and monitoring statistics for 
1,2-dibromomethane, acetaldehyde, and toluene, respectively. Site-specific statistics are 
graphed relative to the PECs for three pollutants in Figures 11-5 through 11-7. Hazard 
quotients were calculated to assess noncancer risk, and these values are provided in 
Table 11-3. 

Data Contact: 

Steve Barbosa 

South Coast Air Quality Management District 
21865 E. Copley Drive 
Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4182 


105 


Figure 11-1. Cancer Risk by Site and Pollutant for the SCAQMD Study 



106 


ANAHEIM AZUSA BURBANK HAWTHORNE 

Site 


















































































































Table 11-1. SCAQMD Cancer Risk by Site and Pollutant 



Anaheim 

Azusa 

Burbank 

Hawthorne 

Pico 

Rivera 

1,2-dibromoethane 

9.32E-05 

1.08E-04 

9.39E-05 

9.31 E-05 


1,2-dichloroethane 

8.40 E-04 

8.43E-04 

8.34E-04 

8.32E-04 


1,3-Butadiene 

1.60E-04 

1.23E-04 

2.38E-04 

2.12E-04 


Acetaldehyde 

2.58E-06 

2.37E-06 



8.83E-06 

Benzene 

6.65E-05 

5.46E-05 

1.04E-04 

7.79E-05 


Chloroethene 

1.59E-04 

1.62E-04 

1.59E-04 

1.62E-04 


Formaldehyde 

2.21 E-05 

1.56E-05 



3.46E-05 

Tetrachloroethene 

5.59E-06 

5.78E-06 

8.58E-06 

4.71 E-06 


Tetrachloromethane 

1.40E-05 

1.39E-05 

1.44E-05 

1.46E-05 


Trichloroethene 

2.00E-06 

3.37E-06 

3.13E-06 

1.62E-06 


Trichloromethane 

2.36E-05 

2.24E-05 

2.53E-05 

2.31 E-05 



Table 11-2. SCAQMD Cancer Risk Rank by Site and Pollutant 



Anaheim 

Azusa 

Burbank 

Hawthorne 

Pico 

Rivera 

1,2-dibromoethane 

4 

4 

5 

4 


1,2-dichloroethane 

1 

1 

1 

1 


1,3-Butadiene 

2 

3 

2 

2 


Acetaldehyde 

10 

11 



2 

Benzene 

5 

5 

4 

5 


Chloroethene 

3 

2 

3 

3 


Formaldehyde 

7 

7 



1 

Tetrachloroethene 

9 

1 | 

1| 

8 


T etrachloromethane 

8 

8 

7 

7 


Trichloroethene 

11 

10 

9 

9 


Trichloromethane 

6 

6 

6 

6 



107 







































Figure 11-2. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Percentiles for 1,2-Dibromoethane 

(RfC=2.60 E-2 ppb) 



108 


SCAOMD Studv 



























Figure 11-3. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Percentiles for Acetaldehyde 

(RfC=9.0 E-3 ppb) 



109 


SCAQMD Study 


























Figure 11-4. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Percentiles for Toluene 

(RfC=1.06 E+2 ppb) 



110 


SCAQMD Study 






















Figure 11-5. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Percentiles for 1,1,1- 

Trichloroethane (PEC=1.74 E+3 ppb) 



111 



















Figure 11-6. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Percentiles for m/p-Xylene 

(PEC=1.38 ppb) 



112 


SCAOMD Sfnrl 


























Figure 11-7. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Percentiles for o-Xylene 

(PEC=1.38 ppb) 




CD 


in 


< 

</> 

Isl 

< 


X 

< 


uojinq Jdd sped 


>> 

T3 

P 

-*-> 

co 

P 

S 

O* 

< 

o 

co 


113 



















Table 11-3. SCAQMD Hazard Quotient by Site and Pollutant 



Anaheim 

Azusa 

Burbank 

Hawthorne 

Pico Rivera 

1,1,1-Trichloroethane 

2.19E-03 

2.12E-03 

3.50E-03 

1.97E-03 


1,2-Dibromoethane 

2.12E+00 

2.46E+00 

2.13E+00 

2.12E+00 


Acetaldehyde 

1.30E-01 

1.20E-01 



4.46E-01 

m/p-Xylene 

1.02E+00 

8.91 E-01 

1.70E-00 

1.12E+00 


o-Xylene 

8.30E-01 

6.26E-01 

1.06E-00 

1.23E+00 


Toluene 

5.74E-02 

5.49E-02 

9.79E-02 

6.68E-02 



114 



















12.0 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA DIOXIN/FURAN STUDY 


Monitoring sites were established at eight locations throughout the South Coast Air 
Basin in areas containing potential combustion sources of PCDDs and PCDFs. The 
monitoring program began on December 2, 1987 and continued through March 29, 1989, 
during which time nine discrete sample sets were collected. Each session involved the 
operation of five to seven stations collecting 24-hour and 36-hour samples. However, the 
data presented in the final study were not broken down by site. 17 

This study employed essentially the same collection and analysis procedures as the 
Bridgeport and Columbus dioxin/furan studies. Polyurethane foam samplers equipped 
with a glass fiber filter and sorbent trap were used to collect particulate and vapor-phase 
PCDDs and PCDFs, respectively. All native dioxins and furans collected from the 
ambient air were quantified against a series of isotopically-labeled internal standards. 
After fortification with the internal standards, the PUF samples were extracted using 
toluene. Analysis was then performed using a HRGC/HRMS system. 

To construct a long-term average, all reported data were averaged across all 
temporal intervals, yielding a single study-wide average concentration for each measured 
dioxin and furan congener. Hence, only a single, study-wide cancer risk is calculated for 
each congener and for all dioxins and all furans. 

Figure 12-1 presents the study-wide aggregated risk for all dioxin congeners (total 
dioxins) and all furan congeners (total furans). The aggregated risk accounts for all 
congeners that possess an inhalation unit risk factor. All other congeners (i.e., those 
without cancer risk factors) are assumed to present no risk. Table 12-1 breaks out the 
aggregate dioxin and furan risks into individual risks for those specific congeners with an 
available IUR. 


115 


Figure 12-1. Cancer Risk by Pollutant for the Southern California Study 



116 
























Table 12-1. Southern California Study-wide Cancer Risk by Dioxin and Furan 

Congener 


Congener 

Individual Lifetime Cancer Risk 

Dioxins 

2,3,7,8-TCDD 

3.96E-07 

2,3,7,8-PeCDD 

7.26E-07 

2.3.7.8- HxCDD 

2.3.7.8- HpCDD 

2.3.7.8- OCDD 

2.1 IE-07 

5.31 E-08 

3.33E-08 

Total Dioxins 

1.42E-06 

Furans 

2,3,7,8-TCDF 

9.24E-06 

1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 

7.92E-08 

2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 

1.62E-06 

2,3,7,8-HxCDF 

7.92E-08 

2,3,7,8-HpCDF 

1.09E-08 

2,3,7,8-OCDF 

9.57E-09 

Total Furans 

1.10E-05 


117 


















































13.0 SOUTHWEST OHIO 


Beginning in September 14, 1989, through December 1991, the Southwestern Ohio 
Air Pollution Control Agency conducted air toxics monitoring to determine which toxic 
compounds may be present in the Cincinnati area. Initially, monitoring was only carried 
out for 35 pollutants at the single site of Carthage. By June of 1991, monitoring data was 
collected from two additional sites, Lower Price Hill and Winton Place State, and the 
number of compounds increased to 60. Six-liter canister samples were filled during a 
period of 24 hours every 13 days, and analysis was performed using GC/MS. Monitoring 
data for toxic air pollutants were obtained from three reports distributed by the 
Southwestern Ohio Air Pollution Control Agency entitled, 1989 Air Quality Data . 1990 Air 
Quality Data , and 1991 Air Quality Data . Annual averages corresponding to pollutants 
that are known HAPs were obtained from the reports. 

Fourteen of the compounds included in the program have an associated IUR to 
estimate potential cancer risk. Additive lifetime risk for the 14 HAPs is presented by site 
in Figure 13-1, and cancer risk graphs for the individual sites are presented in 
Appendix C, Tables C13-1 through C13-3. Tables 13-1 and 13-2 provide the values for the 
risk estimates by site, and the ranking of the pollutants according to cancer risk, 
respectively. 

Reference concentrations have been established for eight pollutants included in the 
monitoring program. Graphs presenting RfCs relative to the arithmetic mean (since 
percentiles could not be calculated) of the monitoring data for six pollutants are shown in 
Figures 13-2 through 13-7. Preliminary evaluation concentrations have been derived for 
seven pollutants, as shown in Figures 13-8 through 13-13, respectively. Four pollutants 
with available health benchmarks were monitored only at the site of Carthage. 

Inhalation reference concentrations for two of these pollutants, and PECs for the other 
two, are presented on a single graph and compared to the mean of the appropriate 
monitoring data in Figure 13-14. 'Table 13-3 lists the value of the hazard quotient 
corresponding to all pollutants for which noncancer health benchmarks were available. 

Data Contact: 

Harry St. Clair 

Southwest Ohio Air Pollution Control Agency 
1632 Central Parkway 
Cincinnati, OH 45210 


119 






Figure 13-1. Cancer Risk by Site and Pollutant for the South West Ohio Study 











? 




? 






)|Sjj auiud^i lenpjAjpuj ()ue)n||odp|nui ‘*a*j) aApjppv 


120 


Carthage Lower Price Hill Wlnton Place State 







































































Table 13-1. South West Ohio Cancer Risk by Site and Pollutant 


S.W. Ohio 

Carthage 

Lower Price Hill 

Winton Place State 

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 

5.84E-05 



1,1,2-Trichloroethane 

1.80E-05 



1,2-Dichloroethane 

2.24E-05 



1,3-Butadiene 

4.81E-04 

■ ' 

* 

. .. • • •. • 

Benzene 

3.59E-05 

1.26E-04 

2.95E-04 

Bromoform 

1.71 E-06 


2.62E-06 

Carbon tetrachloride 

1.49E-05 

1.13E-05 

9.44E-06 

Chloroform 

2.10E-05 

7.86E-06 


Chloromethane 

3.73E-06 

2.38E-06 


Hexachlorobutadiene 

3.52E-05 



Methylene chloride 

3.02E-06 

1.10E-05 

5.71 E-07 

Naphthalene 

8.59E-06 

5.28E-06 


Tetrachloroethene 

2.49E-06 



Vinyl Chloride 

3.08E-05 

" " : i : . ■ 



Table 13-2. South West Ohio Cancer Risk Ranking by Site and Pollutant 


S.W. Ohio 

Carthage 

Lower Price Hill 

Winton Place State 

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 

2 



1,1,2-Trichloroethane 

8 



1,2-Dichloroethane 

6 



1,3-Butadiene 

1 



Benzene 

3 

1 

1 

Bromoform 

14 


3 

Carbon tetrachloride 

9 

2 

2 

Chloroform 

7 

4 


Chloromethane 

11 

6 


Hexachlorobutadiene 

4 



Methylene chloride 

12 

3 

4 

Naphthalene 

10 

5 


Tetrachloroethene 

13 



Vinyl Chloride 

5 




121 



















Figure 13-2. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Mean for Chloroethane 

(RfC=4.93 E+3 ppb) 




uojiijq J9d sped 


Carthage 


























Figure 13-3. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Mean for Ethyl benzene 

(RfC=2.30 E+2 ppb) 




CM CM 

uojHiq Jdd SMed 


O 

& 

CO 


Carthage Lower Price Hill Winton Place State 












Figure 13-4. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Mean for Hexane (RfC=56.7 ppb) 



124 


S. W. Ohio Study 
















Figure 13-5. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Mean for p-Dichlorobenzene 

(RfC=1.33 E+2 ppb) 



125 














Figure 13-6. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Mean for Styrene 

(RfC=2.35 E+2 ppb) 




uojinq jad sped 


Carthage Lower Price Hill Winton Place State 


















Figure 13-7. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Mean for Toluene 

(RfC=1.06 E+2 ppb) 



127 















Figure 13-8. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Mean for 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 

(PEC=1.74E+3 ppb) 




Carthage Lower Price Hill Winton Place State 





















Figure 13-9. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Mean for Carbon Disulfide 

(RfC=3.21 ppb) 





uojnjq Jdd sped 


Carthage Lower Price Hill 


















Figure 13-10. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Mean for Chlorobenzene 

(PEC=13 ppb) 



130 



















Figure 13-11. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Mean for Cumene 

(RfC=1.83 ppb) 



o 

& 

m 



uojinq jad sped 


131 


Carthage Lower Price Hill 

Sites 



















Figure 13-12. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Mean for m/p-Xylene 

(PEC=1.38 ppb) 




co 


uojniq jad sped 


Lower Price Hill Winton Place State Carthage 














Figure 13-13. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Mean for o-Xylene 

(PEC=1.38 ppb) 




uojinq jad sped 


O 

w 


Carthage Lower Price Hill 

Sites 

















Figure 13-14. PEC (1,1-Dichloroethane, Benzyl chloride) and RfC 
(Bromomethane, Chloroprene), and Ambient Monitoring Data Mean at Carthage 



CO 

C> 



uojnjq jad sped 


1,1-Dichloroethane Benzyl chloride Bromomethane Chloroprene 































Table 13-3. South West Ohio Hazard Quotient by Site and Pollutant 



Carthage 

Lower Price Hill 

Winton Place State 

1,1,1 -T richloroethane 

1.2E-3 

8.3E-3 

4.4E-4 

1,1-Dichloroethane 

■ 

1 CC < 
l.OC-1 

• 

■ - 


Benzyl chloride 

4.7E+0 



Bromomethane 

'j.i •• .* • •• * ■* ! 

1.3E-1 

' 


Carbon disulfide 

5.6E-1 

6.2E-1 


Chlorobenzene 

Chloroethane 

Chloroprene 

1.3E-2 

5.0E-5 

5.2E-1 

1.5E-2 

• •• • 

: - .. . ■ ; 

2.0E-2 

Cumene 

8.7E-2 

7.6E-2 


Ethyl benzene 

3.0E-3 

4.0E-3 

1.3E-3 

Hexane 

2.3E-2 

6.3E-2 


m/p-Xylene 

1.5E+0 

2.3E+0 

6.2E-1 

o-Xylene 

5.9E-1 

7.6E-1 


p-Dichlorobenzene 

7.0E-4 

3.8E-3 


Styrene 

8.4E-4 

2.0E-3 

1.5E-3 

Toluene 

3.4E-2 

3.9E-2 

1.5E-2 


135 














































































14.0 STATEN ISLAND/NEW JERSEY URBAN AIR TOXICS ASSESSMENT 
PROJECT 

The Urban Air Toxics Assessment Project (UATAP) involved several project 
participants, prominently including: the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 
both Region II and headquarters; New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection; 
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC); New York State 
Department of Health; the College of Staten Island; the University of Medicine and 
Dentistry of New Jersey; and the New Jersey Institute of Technology. Study details are 
available in a 6-volume EPA report entitled, Staten Island/New Jersey Urban Air Toxics 
Assessment Project Report . 18 

The ambient monitoring data used in this analysis were received on diskette from 
EPA Region II. In comparing the original data received with the data presented in the 
UATAP report, some discrepancies were found. Data corresponding to 24-hour readings 
were collected between October 1987 and September 1989 at 10 sites in Staten Island and 
5 sites in Northern New Jersey for: 

• 22 VOCs at 13 sites; 

• 16 metals at 5 sites; 

• benzo[a]pyrene at 5 sites; and 

• formaldehyde at 5 sites. 

• 

The UATAP report describes results for 40 pollutants. Of these 40, two pollutants had all 
data withdrawn from the analysis (chloromethane and selenium). In addition, certain 
pollutants had data withdrawn for specific sites. For example, all dichloromethane 
readings taken by the New Jersey Institute of Technology and the College of Staten 
Island were invalidated. All readings declared invalid in the UATAP report were 
withdrawn from this analysis. In addition, certain readings were caveated. Readings for 
nickel and iron taken by the New York State Department of Health were caveated as 
minimum values since recoveries were reported as less than 80 percent. For a complete 
list of all withdrawn or caveated data, please refer to Volumes IIIA and IIIB of the 
aforementioned EPA report. 

The UATAP report included results for formaldehyde and benzo[a]pyrene, but no 
data for these pollutants were included in the original files received. Therefore, no 
analyses were performed for these pollutants in this report. 

It is also important to note that only the second year of data was used for the risk 
assessment performed in the UATAP report. The first year of data was not considered 
because the organizations involved were still refining their sampling and analysis 
procedures during this time. All available data (i.e., data collected between October 1987 
and September 1989) were used in the risk analysis presented in this report. However, a 
comparison of risk estimates presented in this report with those in the UATAP report has 
demonstrated that the estimates from the two reports vary only slightly. 

For VOC sample collection, ambient air was drawn through tubes containing various 
adsorbent materials. Trace metals were collected on high volume samplers. 

Formaldehyde was collected using a 2,4-DNPH cartridge. 


137 




Volatile organic compounds were analyzed using GC, verified by MS. Metals were 
analyzed by atomic adsorption spectrometry using various established regulatory 
procedures. Formaldehyde was analyzed by high-performance liquid chromatography 
(using a method found to have an ozone interference, resulting in an under-reporting of 
formaldehyde concentrations). 

A QA subcommittee reviewed the QA operations of the sampling and analytical 
organizations, examined quarterly data reports and QA reports, conducted collocation 
experiments, field-audited the operations and examined the final data sets. Quality 
assurance was more extensive for VOCs than particulates. 

Pollutant MDLs reported by the participants in the UATAP varied with time and 
differed from one another. For purposes of averaging, the convention for readings below 
the MDL has been to assign a value of 1/2 of the MDL to the sample reading. However, 
for the method of analysis used by the New York State Department of Environmental 
Conservation, values below the MDL were considered actual readings, and this reported 
value was used to calculate average concentrations. 

Fourteen of the compounds included in the program had available IURs to calculate 
potential cancer risks. Additive lifetime cancer risk is presented by site for each of the 
HAPs in Figure 14-1. In Appendix C, Figures C14-1 through C14-13 provide lifetime 
cancer risks for the 14 pollutants for each of the 13 sites. Table 14-1 provides the values 
• cancer risk for each pollutant by site, and the ranking of the compounds according 

to risk is presented in Table 14-2. 

Since lead is a criteria air pollutant, the NAAQS was considered the appropriate 
benchmark to use. Figure 14-2 presents the NAAQS for lead in comparison to statistics 
derived from monitoring data at four sites. Inhalation reference concentrations have been 
established for seven pollutants, and graphs corresponding to these pollutants are 
presented in Figures 14-3 through 14-9. Preliminary evaluation concentrations for six 
HAPs are shown relative to the monitoring statistics in Figures 14-10 through 14-15. In 
Table 14-3, hazard quotients are listed by site for all pollutants in the study with 
available NAAQS, RfCs or PECs. 

Data Contact: 

Carol Bellizzi 

US Environmental Protection Agency 
Region II 

Jacob K. Javitz Federal Plaza 
New York, NY 10278 


138 


Figure 14-1. Cancer Risk by Site and Pollutant for the Staten Island Study 


r 














CD 

£ 

c 

>* 

sz 

s 


CD 

C 

03 

£ 

a> 

E 

3 

g 

O 

O 

•g 

2 

a> 

E 

g 

o 

E 

CD 


XZ 

1 

J2 

8 

0 

xz 

0 

•5 

CD 

CD 

o 

S 

E 

o 

.c 

o 

.2 

-C 

c 

£ 

CO 

E 

T3 

CO 

o 

E 

o 

3 

1- 

CD 

C 

CD 

Kl 

C 

o 

‘c 

CD 

E 

■5 

■? 

CM 

• 

OJ 

CL 

z 

Q 

o 

o 

o 

o 

CO 

CD 

CD 

< 

T-‘ 


m 


m 


H 

n 

H 

■ 

m 

■ 


□ 

■ 


o — 



9|l!Auauoi 

SH ->au6eM uesng 

U3JBM3S 

uojieis diund 

S|ABii ‘92 Sd 

puoiugotH yod 

ABMBWOSId 


tn 

CD 

<75 


S||!X JB3JQ 


3||!a6u!JJ3 


MJaqez!l3 

ub6uog 

J3J3JJBQ 

uoibss AdjAsg 


UJ 

o 




o 


3 




UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

O 

O 

CO 

in 

C4 

w 

O 

C4 

2 


UJ 


in 

<? 

UJ 

§ 


JjsjJ auiuajH |enp|A|puj (juejniiodpinuj ‘*a*!) aApjppv 



139 




























































































Table 14-1. Staten Island Cancer Risk by Site and Pollutant 



140 


















Table 14-2. Staten Island Cancer Risk Ranking by Site and Pollutant 


ja> 

’> 

c 

CD 

*= 

o 


I s - Wts V- 


CM CO CO oo w 


C/5 


CD 

</> 

3 

CO 


CD 

C 

cn 

CD 


O) N IM T- 


oo co v m ° n 


CD 

CO 

5 

CD 

CO 


CM CO 


in 


E ~ 

3 CD 
CO 


00(0 *§ 


co cm r-- in 


<o J 2 
cm > 

co 2 
a. »— 


IS. CM -T- cn co m -M- oo co JZ 


X3 

c 

•c ° 
o E 
cl -c 
o 




co cm in co oo 


CD 

5 

CD 
CO 
a 
v > 


cm co 


n 


co <2 
2 > = 
a ^ 


co 


cm co oo in 


cn 

c 


in 


i— CO CM CO 


co h- 


<D 

CD 


co 


CM in CO f- 'T N CO 


c 

CD 

cn| 

c 

o 


co 


t- 00 


CM CO 


in f'- 


<D 

b. 

CD 

•c 

CD 

o 


CM 


in 


co 


n n co 


" o 
bo cn 


in 


T- oo 


CM CO 


co r- 


CD 

C 

CD 

xz 

s 

b. 

o 


o 

‘b 

►7 

CM 

^ SE 


CD 

C 

CD 

l 


CD 

■a 




-C 03 

E = I i e 1 

O | O 3 Q 


CD 

C 

a> 

>. 


: «c«=2p92Eo-3;S 


b o ai b id a 
< m CD CO O O O O Q 


f ■I 

I s 

° o 

JC 

o 


ID 

Ql 


141 




































Figure 14-2. NAAQS and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Lead 

(NAAQS=1.50 ug/cu m) 


cr 

03 

<U 

sO 

sO 

O' 


sO 

03 

in 

O 

m 


CD 


m 

CM 

• 

□ 

O 

0 

< 


a 

p-H 


<D 


03 

-u 

m 



in 


S 


in 


CO 


UJ 


<L> 

r 

33 

o 


J3J3UJ oiqno jad uibj6ojo!^ 























Figure 14-3. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Ethyl benzene 

(RfC=2.30 E+2 ppb) 



143 


Staten Island Study 
















Figure 14-4. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Hexane 

(RfC=5.67 E+1 ppb) 



144 


Staten Island Study 































Figure 14-5. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Manganese 

(RfC=4.00 E-1 ug/cu m) 



145 


Staten Island Study 
















Figure 14-6. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Mercury 

(RfC=3.00 E-1 ug/cu m) 



146 


Staten Island Studv 

















Figure 14-7. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for p-Dichlorobenzene 

(RfC=1.33 E+2 ppb) 



147 

















Figure 14-8. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Styrene 

(RfC=2.35 E+2 ppb) 



148 


Staten TslanH 


























Figure 14-9. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Toluene 

(RfC=1.06 E+2 ppb) 


c. 

<TJ 

05 



O' 


05 

if) 

O 

U5 


05 

i-'- 

W5 

CM 

• 

□ 

o 

o 

< 


O 



aiHAuawoi 


SH J3u6bm ucsns 


uaieMas 


uojjBis dwnd 


si abj j_ ‘9 z Sd 


puoujijoju yod 


□-(g) ABMBJBOSId 


s||i)4 IB9J9 


9|I!a6ui«3 


iflaqB2H3 


ub6uoq 


laiayeo 


uotBds AafAeg 


CO 


uojinq jad sped 


149 


Staten Island Study 



















Figure 14-10. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for 1,1,1- 

Trichloroethane (PEC=1.74 E+3 ppb) 



N? 

O' 

sO 

O' 

s? 

O' 

CT> 

to 

O 

to 

03 


to 

CM 

□ 

O 

O 

< 


o 



CO 


uojnjq jad sped 


Staten Island Study 


































Figure 14-11. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for 1,1- 

Dichloroethane (PEC=1.33 ppb) 



uojiuq Jdd sped 


151 


Staten Island Study 















Figure 14-12. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Chlorobenzene 

(PEC=1.30 E+1 ppb) 



152 


Staten Island Study 


























Figure 14-13. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Cobalt 

(PEC=7.00 E-2 ug/cu m) 




to 


to 


CO 


J3|3ui ojqno jsd swejSajoi^ 


153 


Staten Island Study 













Figure 14-14. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for m/p-Xylene 

(PEC=1.38 ppb) 



O 


C 


<SHO—<3 


Oor><! 




o—•O—<] 




•—<B—■a 


0#00 




-•-o—< 




o—d< 


00-4-0—<3 


§ 

§ 

s 

s 

§ 

g 

s 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

+ 

UJ 

+ 

UJ 

UJ 

+ 

LU 

§ 

s 

§ 

§ 

S 

o 

o 

S 

ai 

ob 

r>^ 

<0 

10 


CO 


LU LU 

§ s 


uojinq jad sped 


3||jAU3U0J. 

SH -»u6e/w uesns 

U3J8M3S 

uojjBJS duind 

S|ABJ1 ‘92 Sd 

PUOUJMOIU yod 

AeMqeosid 

S|||)f leajo 

ailjABuiyg 


v> 

o> 

c75 



MjaqBZH3 

ub6uoq 

la-iayeo 

uojeas Aa|Aeg 



154 


Staten Island Studv 

















































Figure 14-15. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for o-Xylene 

(PEC=1.38 ppb) 





3|l!Auauoi 

SH J9u6eM uesns 

uajBMas 

uofie^s diund 

siabji ‘92 Sd 

PU01UL|0!U UOd 

AeMeieosfd 

SINX lea-iD 

9 |I!a 6 u!H 3 

qjaqezng 

ue6uoa 

13J3WB0 

uoiBas AajAeg 



155 


Staten Island Study 













































Table 14-3. Staten Island Hazard Quotient by Site and Pollutant 


J15 

'> 

c 

*3 

o 


UJ 

CM 

cvi 


LU 

O 


co 

• 

LU 

CO 


Ul 

r- 


■«— in 

• i 

LU UJ 
’t rr 
cm id 


UJ 

r- 

CM 


c n 


ro 

V) 
3 
IC/5 


05 

c 

O) 

<Q 


■o- 

rj- 



CM 

LU 

LU 

LU 

LU LU 

CO 

O 

fM. 

05 

CM 

CM 


cd 

GO 

CM 


CM 

Ul LU 


o> 

<d 


p 

■o- 


t- in 
* * 
LU UJ 
o o> 

cvi 


CM 

• 

LU 

O 

CM 


C 

o> 

k. 

R> 

5 
. <u 
Ico 


Tj- 

I 

LU 

CM 

CO 


<7 

UJ 

i 

UJ 

i 

LU 

CM 

• 

Ul 

in 

CM 

m 

r^- 


id 

cvi 

CM 


E -2 

1°- CO 


■M" 

UJ 

o 

CO 


CO 

I 

LU 


CO 

1 

LU 

o 

LU 

i 

LU 

m 

• 

Ul 

CM 

a 

UJ 

o 

CM 

in 

05 

CO 

cvi 


CO 

• .• 

CO 

cd 


to 

tn 

■M" 

co 

CM 

co 

CM 

CM 

"> 

re 

UJ 

LU 

LU 

LU 

LU 

C/5 

05 

in 

rr 

in 

CO 

Q. 

K* 

c\j 

y— 

cd 

T—' 

cvi 


CM 

LU 

05 


in 

• • 
LU UJ 
▼— io 
co id 


* 

UJ 

CO 

CO 


T3 

c 

It: ° 
o E 
Ql jz 
o 

be 


CM 

CO 


CO 

LU 


CO 

I 

LU 

05 


o 

+ 

UJ 


m 

• • 
UJ Ul 
CO CM 
m- in 


<7 

UL 

I"; 

CO 


CO 

3 

re 

co 

o 

in 


<o vt 

05 = 

|o 2 


1 



9 


-r- 

Pig 

CM 

LU 

flpispl? 


Ul 

Ul 

LU 


Ul 

cvi 

; 


o 

GO 

05 

cd 

p 

fill 

o 

CM 

^r 

i 

■ 

CO 


1- 

' 

in 

CM 

LU 

O 

LU 

LU 

co 


Ul 

CO 

UJ 

r^. 

LU 

CO 

a 

LU 

OO 

cvi 

id 


in M 

GO 

CM 

1^ 

CM 


05 











"> 

i 

9 

Tf 

i 

CO 

<7 

% 

T- 

CO 

TT 

CM 

05 

C 

UJ 

CM 

UJ 

CO 

LU 

r«- 

LU 

GO 

UJ 

p 

UJ 

CM 

LU 

05 

LU 

LU 

CO 

LU 

05 

££ 

CM 

id 

GO 

cvi 



cvi 


cd 

cd 

LU 



• 3 





: . . .. 


, <*> 
| jCt 

re 

N 

|UJ 


•M- 

LU 

m 

co 


CM 

LU 

OO 


CM 

■ 

CM 

co 

f— 1 

CM 

LU 

UJ 

UJ 

Ul 

UJ 

LU 

CM 

s 


in 

▼— 

1"- 

CM 

GO 


CM 

cd 

cd 


co 

05 

C 

o 

o 


LU 

05 


co 

• 

Ul 

GO 

•O’ 

UJ 

in 

CO 

LU 

CO 

CM 

a 

Ul 

rer 


o 

+ 

UJ 

in 



• 

UJ 

vr 

CO 

• 

LU 

■o- 

LU 

05 

CM 

a 

Ul 

id 

i< 

cd 



m 



cd 


cd 

TT 




** 

CM 

1 


CM 

9 




CM 




Ul 

LU 

UJ 

LU 

UJ 

LU 



Ul 




in 

05 

in 

05 

o 

GO 








cd 

r^- 

cd 

cd 

cvi 

WMm 


cd 


05 

i— 

05 

■c 

o 


rr 

UJ 

CO 

CM 


>» 

J15 

>N 

c 

o 

k-< 

■o- 

LU 

*7 

LU 

•M- 

i 

LU 

co 

LU 

CM 

LU 

re 

05 


N 

CM 

CO 

CO 

03 

C/5 

CM 

in 

ad 

CM 



CM 


"7 CO TJ- CM 

LU Ul UJ Ul 
p y- m CM m 
CM T— CO CO 


05 

c 

« 05 

sz c 
■Si re 
§ £ 
O 8 

g I 

o 

TL 9 


05 

C 

05 

fM 

C 

05 

JQ 

O 

k. 

o 


■r- ^ O 


05 

c 

05 

IM 

c - 

o=r c 

*5 re "o 

o £ S S 

O LU X l 


05 

C 

05 


05 

tn 

05 


05 

C 

05 

IM 

1 

2 


"TT C 
3* re 
>< O) 
Q. 

E 


re 


05 

C 

o 

05 

05 

05 


C 

c 

>v 

o 

o> 

<D 

3 

X 

a 

o 

Q 

Q. 

CO 

o 

1— 


156 






















15.0 TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION 


Data corresponding to the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission 
(TNRCC) ambient monitoring study were obtained from a report entitled, Data Summary 
Supplement to the Initial Analyses of Ambient Toxics and Volatile Organic Compound 

Data . 19 This information was compiled by two privately funded networks, the Houston 

Regional Monitoring Corporation and the Southeast Texas Regional Planning 
Commission. Monitoring data were presented by yearly average for each pollutant by 
site. The majority of the sites contained data for 1987 through 1991, but some sites had 
data for fewer years. Mean concentrations were calculated for pollutants at each of the 
12 sites by averaging all available data for each site. The 12 sites are located in one of 
4 counties including Chambers, Harris, Jefferson, and Orange county. 

According to the TNRCC, 1,3-butadiene was found to be leaking from industrial 
sources near two of the monitoring locations (Sites 807 and 2008) during 1989. The 
operational problems at the sources have since been corrected, but this problem caused 
significantly high 24-hour readings on a few of the monitoring days. The annual average 
levels of 1,3-butadiene were elevated due to the magnitude of the high 24-hour readings, 
but have since dropped considerably (from an annual average of 20-30 ppbv in 1989 to 2-3 
ppbv in 1990). The estimated lifetime cancer risk due to 1,3-butadiene is likely to be 
inflated by these elevated readings. 

The TNRCC has collected monitoring data for additional years (1992-1993) and for 
six additional sites. However, due to time and resource constraints, these additional data 
were not incorporated into the results of this study. 

Inhalation unit risk factors have been developed for 18 pollutants included in the 
monitoring program, and additive lifetime cancer risk is presented by site for each of the 
HAPs in Figure 15-1. Figures C15-1 through C15-12 in Appendix C provide graphs for 
lifetime risk for each pollutant at each site. Table 15-1 presents the values for calculated 
cancer risk, and Table 15-2 ranks the pollutants in order of decreasing cancer risk. 

Reference concentrations have been developed for 13 compounds, and PECs have 
been established for 9 of the pollutants. Figures 15-2 through 15-14 present the RfCs, 
and Figures 15-15 through 15-23 display the PECs. Hazard quotients were calculated to 
assess the noncancer risk associated with these pollutants, and the pollutants and the 
corresponding HQ values are listed in Table 15-3. 

Data Contact: 

Red Barta 

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission 
Monitoring Operations Division 
P.O. Box 13087 
Austin, TX 78711-3087 


157 





Figure 15-1. Cancer Risk by Site and Pollutant for the TNRCC Study 



158 




















































































Table 15-1. TNRCC Cancer Risk by Site and Pollutant 




V. 








.... 









<30 


MS 


¥ 

co 

o 

T 


CO 

9 

in 

9 

m 

o 

WUm 

in 

o 

¥ 


9 

CO 

o 



in 

9 

o 




UI 

UJ 


LU 

UJ 

LU 

spssps 

LU 

UI 


UJ 

LU 



UI 

o 

CM 


11 


3 

m 

co 


CD 


in 

co 

%.• 

CD 

I''- 

8 


in 

o 

o 



O 





CM* 

to 



to 

co 

• V.? 

• 


• 



CM 





8 

i 

¥ 

in 

in 

in 

to 

to 

in 

in 

to 

to 

¥ 

r^~ 

to 



in 

LO 


o 

1 

9 

o 

• 

9 

o 

9 

o 

9 

o 

o 

9 


9 

o 

9 

o 

UJ 

UJ 

LU 

LU 

UJ 

LU 

LU 

LU 

LU 

UI 

LU 

UI 

LU 

LU 


LU 

LU 

LU 

CD 

CD 

CO 

to 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CD 

CD 

in 

CD 

CM 

in 

m 

CO 


r*- 

o 

N 

CD 

CO 


in 


CD 

▼— 


CM 

to 

CD 

to 

r^- 

▼— 


CM 

o 

o 




CM 


CO 



to 

co 

in 

in 


co 

CM 



r'- 



8 

• 

¥ 

in 

o 

• 

¥ 

in 

o 

1 

to 

9 

CO 

o 

in 

9 

in 

o 

¥ 

to 

o 

¥ 

o 

9 


CO 

9 

in 

o 

in 

9 

o 

UJ 

UJ 

LU 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

LU 

UJ 

LU 

UJ 

LU 

UI 

LU 

LU 


UI 

LU 

LU 

o> 

CD 

T"* 

CD 

to 

▼— 

CM 

CD 

CD 

I-- 

CD 

CM 

f'- 

CO 

CM 


t"- 

8 


CD 

T— 

in 

CM 

CO 

CD 

T— 

1^- 


to 

r— 

CO 

v— 

CD 


GO 

o 



to 


in 

to 

*<r 

■*“ 

CO 

CM 

in 


CO 

CO 

CO 





m 

8 

• 

¥ 

in 

o 

i 

in 

9 

CO 

o 

1 

to 

9 

CO 

o 

9 

in 

o 

¥ 

to 

o 

¥ 

in 

o 

¥ 


9 

in 

o 

in 

9 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UI 

LU 

UI 

LU 

UJ 

LU 

UJ 

LU 

UI 

LU 

UI 


UJ 

LU 

UI 

GO 

CD 

CD 

to 

CO 

CD 

in 

CO 

• 

co 

§ 

CD 

f= 

s 

CD 

to 

CO 

CM 

a 

oo 

CD 

¥ 


to 

O 

O 

i^. 



TT 


CO 

' r ~ 

iri 

T “ 

to 

CD 

in 

-tf- 

co 

CM 

T- 


CM 

D-‘ 

T “ 


o 

1 

¥ 

in 

o 

i 

in 

9 

o 

i 

to 

9 

CO 

o 

in 

9 

? ¥ 

CO 

o 

¥ 

CO 

o 

9 



in 

o 

l 

in 

9 

o 

LU 

UJ 

LU 

UJ 

LU 

UJ 

LU 

UJ 

UJ 

UI 

LU 

LU 

LU 

K 


UJ 

LU 

UI 

co 

CD 

8 

co 

S 

▼— 

CM 

CD 

CD 

o 

CD 


CD 

CM 


to 

O 

r~- 


CD 

r- 

O 

CD 

■*— 


▼“ 

CO 


«•? 

CM 

o 



O 

o 





CM 


M- 


to 

T_ 

m 


to 


h- 



D~-‘ 

*•“ 



to 

in 

m 

CO 

to 

CO 

in 

in 

to 

CO 

to 

CO 

to 


r-'- 

in 

in 


O 

« 

o 

o 

• 

9 

o 

1 

9 

o 

9 

o 

i 

9 

o 

1 

9 

o 

9 


9 

o 

1 

9 

r—> 

LU 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

LU 

UJ 

LU 

UI 

LU 

LU 

LU 

LU 

LU 

UI 


UJ 

LU 

UI 

CO 

CD 

to 

<30 

in 

CO 

in 

CD 

CD 

in 

CD 


in 

CO 

<30 


CM 

o 

r— 


CD 

CO 

o 

f'- 

CM 

CD 

T— 

r^- 

CO 

to 

CO 

o 

CD 

o 


O 

o 

o 


-r_ 


CM 

«P» 

CD 



to 

CD 

in 

CO 


CM 

y~ 


y— 




o- 

to 

in 

in 

•o- 

to 

CO 

in 

in 

¥ 

CO 

¥ 

r- 

r- 



in 

in 


O 

• 

9 

o 

• 

9 

o 

9 

o 

9 

o 

1 

O 

o 

l 

9 


9 

o 

l 

9 

Q 

LU 

LU 

LU 

LU 

LU 

UJ 

LU 

LU 

LU 

LU 

LU 

UI 

LU 

UJ 


UJ 

LU 

LU 


CD 

to 


<30 

CM 

i 

CD 

CD 

8 

CD 

CO 

CO 

to 

in 


▼— 

O 

CO 


o> 

CO 

to 


O 


D- 

to 

CO 

to 

in 

CD 


TT 

O 

in 





T-» 

CO 

in 


to 

CO 

in 

in 

CO 

D~- 

to 
























CO 

? ¥ 

in 

o 

in 

9 

o 

¥ 

CO 

O 

in 

9 

m 

o 

¥ 

in 

o 

¥ 

o 

9 


9 

in 

o 

i 

in 

9 

LU 

UJ 

Llll 

LU 

LU 

UJ 

LU 

UJ 

LU 

UJ 

LU 

UJ 

LU 

UI 


UJ 

LU 

UI 


CD 

to 

O 

co 

CD 

in 

CD 

CD 

8 

CD 

T— 

CO 


CO 


o 

O 

CO 


CD 

CO 


CD 

O 

CD 

▼— 

^5 

CO 

CD 

o 

CD 

in 



o 

to 


■*- 


CM 

CO 

CM 

*T 


to 

r^- 

in 

CO 

in' 

r- 

o> 


T* 

r~- 



S 8 

in 

o 

¥ 

CO 

o 

to 

9 

CO 

o 

in 

9 

m 

o 

¥ 

CO 

o 

¥ 

D- 

o 

1 

9 


CO 

9 

in 

o 

i 

in 

9 


LU 

UI 

LU 

UJ 

LU 

UI 

LU 

LU 

LU 

LU 

LU 

UI 

LU 

UI 


UJ 

LU 

K 


CD 

co 

O 

CO 

CO 


CD 

CD 

CD 

CD 

CO 

5? 

in 




O 


CD 

CO 

r-~. 

in 

O 



i*- 

CD 

to 

O 

o 

to 


CD 

o 

CO 


•«— 


t— 

co 


in 

•»— 

co 

CD 

in 


oo 

to 

CO 


rsl 

1^ 

CM 


CM 


¥ 3 

Ui LU 

o> 3 

CM CM 


8 

LU 

CD 


in to 
o o 
■ ■ 

in UJ 

CD CO 

r*. o 
to co 


CO 

o 


¥ 


o 


2 

in cm 


h- co 

9 9 

UJ UJ 

to CD 
f- m 


LO 

9 


o 

o 


CO 


CO 

in 

in 

CO 

CO 

l^. 


in 

9 

o 

o 

9 

o 

o 

9 

9 

o 

1 

9 

UI 

LU 

UJ 

LU 

LU 

LU 

UI 

LU 

LU 

UI 

in 

CD 

CD 

CD 


in 


to 

CO 

CO 

to 

CD 




co 

in 



r| 

co 


*r- 

to 

CO 

in 


to 


T— 


CM 


¥ 

UJ 

Pi 


Tj- 

CO 

in 

in 

co 

to 

IM. 

CO 

in 

O 

o 

9 

o 

i 

o 

"•.v.v.v • 

9 

9 

o 

1 

9 

LU 

LU 

UI 

UI 

LU 

UI 

UJ 

LU 

UI 

O 

CD 

CD 

in 

O 


GO 

CO 


CO 



to 

CO 

GO 

|<F“ 

v— 

o 

CO 

▼“ 

to 

co 

r-X 

CO 

T- 

c\i 

T— 


« 

c 

CO 

£ 

"a> 

o 


a> 
c 
to 

o *= 


o 

2 

aj 

*T 

CM 


8 

o 


CD 

JD 

>. 

JZ 

§ 

k. 

o 


ta 

£s 

8 


o -= -EE 




o 

a 


o 

Q 

■ 

CM 


at 


at 

c 

m 

T3 at 

<u 

w 

c 

CO 

>. = 

T3 

•g .-e 

2 g 

«3 

X 

o 


CD 

TJ 


O 

CD 


CD 
2 
CD O 
C -$= 

“ o 


CD 

C 

CD 


±= O 

g S 


u E « « ® g E 

o-o E g«^S 

o £ o o " 5 . £ o ^ 

!9 j Sl-llfffii 

>_ O O CD k CO £ j; « CD CD 


CD 

TJ 


CD 

C 

CD 


O 

>. 


eo _ 

-r-" T-" < < 


m m o o o 


> > 


159 





























Table 15-2. TNRCC Cancer Risk Ranking by Site and Pollutant 


2008 

tO ▼— CD CM CO f U) ® OO CD 

901 

•*— $2 <ONcv T * Ln ta'Ln 0 mN(0^r ^coco 

900 

1 

8 

6 

10 

3 

11 

14 

4 

5 

9 

12 

13 

15 

16 

17 

2 

7 

815 


oo 

<=> 

CO 


807 

w^<ON’-®^u>no”5J^‘2 tc oo 

804 

£ rj- OO 

803 

2 

13 

8 

1 

12 

14 

5 

3 

•! 2 : Ll 

10 

7 

11 

16 

15 

17 

4 

g 

801 

cvjjNeOT-N^ujco^Oo)®" C^rrto 

102 

to T- CD CM CO f If) O CO TT 

100 

n ■»— . co cm co in to o> ® 

CM 

: 

6 

1 

9 

2 

3 

5 

7 

10 

8 

4 


1.1.2.2- Tetrachloroethane 

1.1.2- Trichloroethane 

1.1- Dichloroethylene 

1.2- Dichloroethane 

1.3- Butadiene 

1.4- Dioxane 

Acetaldehyde 

Acrylonitrile 

Benzene 

Bromoform 

Carbon tetrachloride 
Chloroform 

Chloromethane 

Methylene chloride 

Naphthalene 

Tetrachloroethylene 

Vinyl bromide 

Vinyl chloride 


160 





















Figure 15-2. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for 1,2- 

Dichloropropane (RfC=1.30 ppb) 



161 


TNRCC Study 




















Figure 15-3. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for 2-Butanone 

(RfC=3.39 E+2 ppb) 








E 

03 


c 


E 

c 

CD 

ra 

TD 

E 

X 

-C 

o 

f— 

<D 

CD 

CO 

CD 




CD 

• 

O 

□ 

II 



uojinq jad sped 























Figure 15-4. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Acetaldehyde 

(RfC=5.00 ppb) 




$ 


CO 


3 


uojinq jad sped 


163 


TNRCC Study 






























Figure 15-5. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Acrylonitrile 

(RfC=9.22 E-1 ppb) 



164 


TNRCC Study 


























Figure 15-6. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Bromomethane 

(RfC=1.29 ppb) 


— •= o 


c 

c 

(0 

rj 

E 

00 

<D 

T3 

fi 

's 




• 

O 

□ 



s 


§ 


uojiijq jad sped 


Sites 















Figure 15-7. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Chloroethane 

(RfC=4.93 E+3 ppb) 




166 


TNRflf! 



























Figure 15-8. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Ethyl benzene 

(RfC=2.30 E+2 ppb) 



167 


U- 7 















Figure 15-9. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for lodomethane 

(RfC=1.72 ppb) 



168 


TNRCC Studv 





























Figure 15-10. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Methyl tert-butyl 

ether (RfC=1.39 E+2 ppb) 



169 


TNRCC Study 




















Figure 15-11. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for p-Dichlorobenzene 

(RfC=1.33 E+2 ppb) 



170 


TNRCC Study 






















Figure 15-12. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Styrene 

(RfC=2.35 E+2 ppb) 



171 


TNRCC Study 


















Figure 15-13. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Toluene 

(RfC=1.06 E+2 ppb) 



172 


TNRfin 
























































Figure 15-14. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Vinyl bromide 

(RfC=6.86 E-1 ppb) 



173 


























Figure 15-15. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for 1,1,1- 

Trichloroethane (PEC=1.74 E+3 ppb) 




uojinq jad sjjbh 


o 

o 

CM 


§5 


s 

GO 


§ 

CM 


Sites 






















Figure 15-16. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for 1,1- 

Dichloroethane (PEC=1.33 ppb) 



175 


TNRCC Study 

























Figure 15-17. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Acetonitrile 

(PEC=9.53 E-01 ppb) 



176 


TNRCC Study 




























Figure 15-18. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Chlorobenzene 

(PEC=1.30 E+1 ppb) 



177 


TNRCC Study 






















Figure 15-19. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Cumene 

(PEC=1.83 ppb) 



178 


TNRCC Study 
































Figure 15-20. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for m/p-Xylene 

(PEC=1.38 ppb) 




o 

<T> 


O 

a> 


in 

a> 

zz 

in 


2 


8 


in 

CM 


uojHjq Jad sped 


179 


TNR 


























Figure 15-21. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Methanol 

(PEC=2.37 E+3 ppb) 




uojinq Jdd sued 




















Figure 15-22. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for 
Methylisobutylketone (PEC=2.44 E+2 ppb) 



181 














Figure 15-23. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for o-Xylene 

(PEC=1.38 ppb) 




uojiiiq jad sped 



182 


TNR 






































Table 15-3. TNRCC Hazard Quotient by Site and Pollutant 


CO 

i 

IM 


<? 

CM 

• 



IlfpflS'j 

CO 


CM 

«? 



CM 



o 

+ 


CM 

CM 


o 

LU 



LU 

LU 

LU 

LU 


LU 


UJ 

UI 


LU 

LU 

UI 


LU 


111 

til 


o 

CM 

r^. # 



in 

CO 

o 

cd 

<=> 

■o-' 

o 

in 


cd 


TT 

c\i 

p 


CO 

CM 

P 

CM 


in 

V* 


■o- 

CM 

id 


o 

* 

LU 

T— 

« 

LU 

CM 

1 

LU 


CM 

• 

LU 

• 

LU 

• 

LU 

*-* 

a 

ill 

« 

LU 

in 

• 

UI 

• 

LU 

CO 

■ 

UI 

• 

LU 

*♦* 

Ui 


T 

UI 

CO 

• 

LU 

4 T* 

• 

Ui 

CO 

1 

LU 

CO 

■ 

Ui 

CM 

lil 

• 

Ul 

CD 

ao 

O 

T— 

CD 

cd 

Ip. 

o 

cd 

<=» 

O’ 

O 

in 

05 

• 

CO 

CM 

CM 

o 

in 

cd 

CO 

1^ 

05 

CM 

O 

CM 


CM 

K 

O 

C\i 

h- 

m 

ao 

cd 

• 

CM 

m 

CO 



P 

CM 


CM 

V 



CO 


CM 

<? 

^r— 



T 

CO 


co 

«? 

CM 


o 

o 

LU 

LU 

LU 


LU 

LU 

LU 

lil 

LU 

UI 

LU 

UI 

LU 

111 


111 

LU 

UI 

lil 

UI 

UJ 

ui 

CD 

in 

N 

CD 


O 

O 

O 

05 


o 

p 

05 

05 



CM 

O 

CD 

ao 

p 

CM 

CO 


CD 

CO 

cd 

WMM 

cd 


in 

cd 

cd 

«*■» 



CM 

CM 



CM 

-T— 

cd 

-T— 

CM 




<*— 

CM 

. 

CM 

qmm 



CM 

in 


CM 


▼-* ' 


CM 

CO 

o 

co 

CO 



in 

LU 

111 

1 

LU 

•§§H§§|| 

LU 

1 

LU 

1 

LU 

• 

LU 

1 

LU 

l 

IU 

1 

LU 

• 

UI 

1 

LU 

Ui 


• 

Ui 

UJ 

+* 

UJ 

1 

LU 

1 

LU 

1 

LU 

■ 

Ul 

CO 

CO 

p 

CD 


O 

O 

O 

CD 

CO 

o 

CO 

CM 

05 

CO 


CO 

O 

p 

ao 

P 

O 

p 




cd 

WB 

cd 


in 

CO 

cd 

“T— 

id 

-r " 

CM 



cd 

CM 

CO 

cd 


CM 

N 


CO 

1 


CVJ 

• 


CM 

1 


1 

CO 

*? 


«? 




*T 

CO 

? 

co 

CO 



o 

LU 

LU 

LU 

flp^ 

LU 

LU 

LU 

Ui 

LU 

UI 

LU 

UI 

LU 

LU 


Ui 

lil 

LU 

til 

LU 

LU 

Ul 

CO 

in 

CO 

CD 

ipSl 

O 

O 

o 

05 

ao 

p 

05 


05 

1^- 


CM 

o 

o 

ao 

o 

CO 

CO 




cd 

Z " - 

cd 

o- 

in 

cd 

05 


cd 

ad 

CM 

cd 



CM 

CM 

cd 

id 




CO 

CM- 

CM 


CM 



:g : 

CM 

in 


CM 


o 


CO 

CO 

o 

co 

co 



r- 

o 

LU 

lit 

1 

LU 


LU 

• 

LU 

i 

LU 

I 

Ui 

1 

LU 

• 

Ui 

l 

LU 

■ 

UI 

1 

LU 

+ 

UI 


1 

UJ 

• 

LU 

Ui 

l 

LU 

■ 

UI 

UJ 

t 

Ul 

CO 

in 


05 

-V-- - 

O 

O 

O 

05 

CM 

o 

CM 

▼— 

05 

CO 



O 


ao 


p 

CO 


T "’ 

cd 

cd 


cd 


in 

cd 




■r- 

cvi 



05 

CM 

T- 

cd 

CO 



o 

CO 

1 

LU 

LU 

CM 

LU 

§§§| 

CM 

LU 

lil 

1 

LU 

UI 

co 

1 

LU 

w 

UI 

1 

LU 

CO 

• 

UI 

• 

LU 

? 

UI 


CO 

• 

LU 

CO 

1 

LU 

’t 

Ui 

co 

1 

LU 

CO 

UI 

CM 

IJLI 

ui 

CO 

O 

p 

CD 


O 

o 

O 

05 

CO 

p 

O 

r«- 

05 

CM 


T— 

O 


ao 

m; 

CO 

co 


<r ” 

^r" 

cd 


cd 


in 

cd 

05 

tt 

cd 

cd 

CM 

CM 


CM 

CM 


cd 


id 

D-” 


CO 

1 

CM 

t 

CM 

1 


CM 

1 


i 

• 

• 

in 

■ 

1 

CO 

• 

1 

? 


CO 

• 

CO 

1 

o 

co 

l 

CM 

• 

i 

T— 

a 

o 

LU 

in 

LU 


LU 

IU 

LU 

IU 

LU 

UI 

LU 

UI 

LU 

LU 


LU 

LU 

LU 

LU 

Ul 

LU 

Ul 

CO 

D~. 


05 

l_ p 

O 

o 

O 

05 

p 

o 

CO 

CM 

05 



O 

O 

p 

CD 

• 


CO 



co 

cd 


cd 


id 

cd 



id 

05 

cvi 

n 


CM 

cvi 


cd 

CM 





p 

CM 


CM 




CM 

*? 


CM 


o 



CO 

O 

co 

CO 




LU 

LU 

LU 

gpi 

LU 

IU 

LU 

UI 

LU 

Ui 

LU 

UI 

UJ 

UI 


LU 

lil 

LU 

UJ 

Ui 

UJ 

lil 

CO 

CD 

p 

05 


O 

o 

O 

05 

p 

p 

CD 

p 

05 



p 

o 

p 

CO 

CO 

p 

co 


ad 


cd 

mt 

cd 

■«y 

id 

cd 

T " 

▼— 

cd 


cvi 

*c 



CM 


cd 

id 




CO 

. • 


CO 

CM 


1 


CM 

• 

-Z‘"“-7r 

CM 

1 

CO 

• 


o 

CM 

• 



T— 

t 



CVJ 

i 



LU 



LU 

LU 

LU 

LU 


LU 


LU 

UI 


LU 

LU 

UI 


LU 


Ul 

LU 






CO 

o 

O 

o 


CM 

_• M 1 M 

o 

CO 


OJ 

C£5 

p 


CO 


CM 

p 




Bill 


in 

cd 


id 

pppi? 

cd 


id 

CM 


T— 

CM 

S 


id 


TT 




CO 



CO 

CM 




CO 

:.„r. 

CM 

CO 



CM 

T 




? 

CM 


o 

LU 



LU 

LU 

LU 

LU 


LU 


LU 

IU 


IU 

LU 

LU 


UI 


LU 

LU 



p 



CD 

o 

O 

o 




p 

CO 


TT 


CM 


CO 


N 

p 




Mil 


in 

cd 


id 

fl§§ 

cd 



cd 



’*T 



id 


Tf 

id 




MM 


CM 

CM 




co 

1 


CM 

1 

CO 

• 


O 

CM 

• 

• 


■ 


"T 

CM 

1 


CM 

LU 

~.T~c 


LU 

LU 

Ul 

LU 


LU 


LU 

UI 


UI 

UJ 

UI 


UI 


Ul 

LU 



ao 



o 

O 

o 

o 



• ' i 

O 

ao 


p 

D- 



in 






CO 

Sf§§§ 


CM 

cd 


id 

IslI 

cd 

yj. 

cd 

TT 


T— 


s 


id 



cd 



a> 

c 


a> 














05 

C 







CO 

CD 

c 













k- 

o 


05 





4> 

c 

to 

JZ 

CO 

CL 

o 





05 

a> 





■■■■ 


Q> 

JZ 

++ 

05 

J>C 


c 

05 

N 





o 

>— 

o 

JZ 

o 

*C 

V- 

• 

1 

o 

o 

a 

• 

k_ 

CL 

O 

>— 

o 

o 

o 

• 

CM 

® 

c 

o 

c 

TO 

■s 

m 

cetaldehyde 

® 

'Ll 

X£ 

O 

“5 

o 

crylonitrile 

C 

TO 

a> 

E 

o 

E 

o 

»_ 

c 

<d 

IM 

C 

.8 

o 

o 

JC. 

hloroethane 

05 

c 

0) 

E 

3 

05 

C 

05 

2 

£ 

>% 

idomethane 

i/p-Xylene 

O 

c 

TO 

05 

t 

■9 

■>* 

"S 

f 

X .J 

o 

ut 

■>. 

OJ 

05 

c 

05 

>* 

X 

c 

05 

JZ 

2 

o 

o 

o 

05 

c 

05 

05 

c 

05 

3 

O 

Inyl bromide 





CM 

< 

< 

< 

m 

o 

o 

o 

UJ 

— 

c 

s 


2 

o 

CL 

55 

1- 

> 


183 









































































































































































16.0 URBAN AIR TOXICS MONITORING PROGRAM 


The Urban Air Toxics Monitoring Program (UATMP) was initiated by the EPA in 
1987, and provided an opportunity for State and local air agencies to obtain air toxics 
monitoring data without having to develop their own in-house analytical capabilities. 
Instead, EPA supplied participating agencies with sampling apparatus, and all 
subsequent samples were then shipped to EPA (or an EPA contractor) for analysis and 
QA. An EPA report published in 1987 provides a general overview of the UATMP. 20 In 
addition, annual reports have been published for each year that monitoring studies have 
been performed under the UATMP. The UATMP data base is a multi-year collection of 
toxics monitoring data for a varying number of cities throughout the United States. Each 
subsequent year after 1987, anywhere from 12 to 19 cities have participated in the 
UATMP. The following table summarizes the cities participating in each year for which 
data was used in this report: 


1988 

1989 

1990 

Burlington, VT 

Camden, NJ 

Camden, NJ 

Atlanta, GA 

Washington, DC 1 

Washington, DC 1 

Birmingham, AL 

Miami, FL 

Orlando, FL 

Louisville, KY 

Ft. Lauderdale, FL 

Pensacola, FL 

Jacksonville, FL 

Pensacola, FL 

Chicago, IL 

Miami, FL 

Chicago, IL 2 

Sauget, IL 

Chicago, IL 2 

Sauget, IL 

Toledo, OH 

Cleveland, OH 

Dallas, TX 

Houston, TX 

Detroit, MI 

Houston, TX 

Baton Rouge, LA 

Dearborn, MI 

Baton Rouge, LA 

Port Neches, TX 

E. St. Louis (Sauget, IL) 

Wichita, KS l 

Wichita, KS 1 

Hammond, IN 

Port Huron, MI 

Midland, MI 

East Lansing, MI 

Dallas, TX 

Houston, TX 

Baton Rouge, LA 

St. Louis, MO 

St. Louis, MO 

Portland, OR 

• 



x Two UATMP monitoring sites were located in these cities. 

^he site location for Chicago was moved between 1988 and 1989. However, readings taken at the 
two separate sites were averaged together. 

Three types of samples were taken: filter samples to be analyzed for certain metals 
and benzo[a]pyrene (BaP), DNPH cartridges for collection of carbonyls (formaldehyde and 
other aldehydes), and stainless steel canister samples for 38 target VOCs. All samples 
were collected simultaneously every 12th day for 24-hour periods. Samples collected in 
each city were shipped to Research Triangle Park, NC for centralized analysis. 


185 









Canister samples for VOCs were analyzed by GC and either a FID for hydrocarbons 
or an electron capture detector (ECD) for chlorinated hydrocarbons. A portion of the 
canister samples was also analyzed using a GC/MS for identification confirmation. 
Carbonyls (aldehydes) were analyzed by HPLC with ultraviolet absorption. Certain 
metals were analyzed by neutron activation analysis (NAA) and others by inductively 
coupled plasma (ICP) spectroscopy. Samples of BaP were analyzed by thin-layer 
chromatography. 

Extensive QA measures were carried out through such means as daily calibration 
checks, sample blanks," duplicate and replicate samples, and audit samples. 

For the purposes of this report, average concentrations were calculated over all 
applicable monitoring years at 30 different sites. For acetaldehyde and formaldehyde, 
calculations based on monitoring during 1988 were separated from the other years of the 
study. Data corresponding to this year were analyzed separately because the actual raw 
monitored values were not available, only the summary statistics. 

Of the 57 air contaminants for which data were collected, 21 had known unit risk 
factors to determine the potential risk of cancer from exposure to these compounds. 
Additive lifetime risk for the 21 pollutants is presented in Figure 16-1. Graphs for the 
individual sites are presented in Appendix C, Figures C16-1 through C16-30. Calculated 
cancer risks for each of the pollutants are presented in Table 16-1, and Table 16-2 ranks 
these values in order of decreasing lifetime cancer risk. 

Figure 16-2 presents the NAAQS for lead in pg/m 3 , and compares this value with the 
monitoring data statistics at all sites which sampled for lead. Inhalation reference 
concentrations have been established for 11 HAPs; graphs corresponding to these 
pollutants are presented in Figures 16-3 through 16-13. Preliminary evaluation 
concentrations graphed relative to the monitoring statistics for 5 HAPs are shown in 
Figures 16-14 through 16-18. Table 16-3 provides a comprehensive list of the pollutants 

with available reference concentrations and indicates their corresponding hazard quotient 
by site. 

Data Contact: 

Neil Berg 

US Environmental Protection Agency 
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 
MD-14 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 


186 


Figure 16-1. Cancer Risk by Site and Pollutant for the UATMP Study 



CO 

p 

CO 

s> 

CO 

<? 

CO 

<=? 

9 

CO 

<? 

CO 

CO 

<? 

CO 

<? 


111 

LLI 

LU 

UJ 

LU 

LU 

LU 

LU 

LU 

LU 

o 

o 

O 

O 

§ 

8 

O 

O 

8 

s 

o 

p 

8 

8 

a> 

GO 


CD 

in 


CO 

cvi 


o 


)js u atmiajji lenpiAipu; (lUBjnnodmnui ‘-aj) OApippy 


187 



















Table 16-1. UATMP Cancer Risk by Site and Pollutant 



188 




































Table 16-1. UATMP Cancer Risk by Site and Pollutant (cont.) 


c n 

9 


9 

UJ 

oo 

9 

9 

Ul 

co 

- 



in 

9 


? 


in 

9 

9 

9 

pH 

in 

9 


9 


9 

9 

m 

9 

9 

CM 

LU 

CO 

UJ 

Ul 




UJ 

in 


Ul 

05 


Ul 

UJ 

Ul 


LU 


Ul 

5S=v?x>:r 

Ul 

Ul 

UJ 

LU 








co 

CO 



"T 


05 


05 








05 




05 

sssissM 

CO 


o 

o 

CO 


CM 


CM 



co 

vr— 

CO 


CO 

-v 

CM 


cd 




cvi 

WMW 

in 


CM 

00 

cd 

SBMi 

CM 




cd 


cm’ 

▼— 

o 

9 

9 

9 

UJ 

? 

9 


in 

9 

9 

in 

9 

9 

? 

9 

m 

9 

9 

9 

in 

9 

in 

9 


1^- 

9 

9 

9 

9 

in 

9 

^y 

9 


LU 

UJ 

UJ 

LU 


Ul 

LU 

Ul 

UJ 

Ul 

Ul 

LU 

UJ 

Ul 

UJ 

Ul 


UJ 

UJ 

Ul 

UJ 

Ul 

LU 


R 

o 

in 

o 

O 

r . ~ „. v 

CM 

CO 

CO 

r^. 

05 

CO 

O 


CM 

co 

05 



in 

co 

05 

in 

CM 


CO 

CO 

CO 

▼— 




oo 


CO 

CM 

05 

o 


m 

r- 

WSSS S5 

05 

ao 

in 

f** 


CO 



r*’ 

CM 

•d 

oo 



05 


r- 

in 

v~ 

T“* 

od 

cd 


oo 



d 

cm 

CM 

CM 

cd 

C/3 

9 

LU 

9 

9 

in 

9 

9 




in 

9 

Bm 

? 


in 

9 

N 

9 

r^. 

9 


in 

9 


9 

1. -I 

9 

9 

in 

9 

•*y 

9 


UJ 

LU 

UJ 

UJ 




UJ 


UJ 


in 

UJ 

Ul 

^rXXrXy-X 

UJ 


in 


Ul 

Ul 

in 

LU 


S 

«D 

CO 

O) 

o 

2£5s->;vHkS 


iSv/SSK-H 

o 

xgtxsxifSSi 

CO 

gSgayrasig? 

o 

rvf 

CM 

a»«saa; 

TT 


co 


T— 

CD 

in 

05 

5 

o 

CO 



in 

y-'-Lz-z 






§8?x -Xsw 

GO 

CO 



05 

• ~£ 

in 


o 

CM 


O 


cvi 

CO 

cm 

co 

in 




c\i 


r-' 


cvi 

cd 

cd 




CM 



CM 

cvi 

CM 

o 

9 

9 

9 

9 

in 

9 

WmM 

in 

9 


in 

9 

9 

? 

9 

in 

9 

9 

9 

9 

in 

9 


r^ 

9 

9 

9 

n. 

9 

in 

9 

9 

Q 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

Ul 

Ul 

:Sv«s»-3 

LU 

Ul 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

LU 

UJ 

Ul 

UJ 

in 

•~v«~ /• 

in 

Ul 

UJ 

UJ 

Ul 

UJ 


05 

in 

CO 

o 

CO 


CO 

O 

05 


05 

in 

OO 


CM 

CO 

CM 


o 


r- 

05 

m 

in 


CO 

«» 

GO 

oo 

•*y 



« 

**r 


co 

9 

co 

9 


<1 

05 



p 

y—' 

9 

ry 

p 


in 

!■£ 

<b 

ui 




05 

cd 


in 


cvi 


cd 


cd 


CM 

co 

d 

CM 

d 

cd 


r^. 

9 

9 

5? 

9 

9 




in 

9 

W?MWS: 

9 


in 

9 

r- 

9 

9 

:--- 

in 

9 


h- 

9 


9 

9 

^y 

9 

•*y 

9 

o 

LU 

UJ 

LU 

Ul 

UJ 




Ul 

•~™X£-Xi- 

Ul 

: r.„ . 

LU 

LU 

LU 


UJ 


LU 

-XviM- 

LU 

LU 

LU 

LU 

—J 

oo 

o 

O 

05 

05 




CO 

•r/.r.Avri£v 

05 




CM 


CO 




O 

in 

05 

CO 

t- 

05 

• 

y~~ 


in 




CO 


CO 


CO 

co 

CO 


oo 




O 

m 

CM 

in 


CO 

in 

CM 

« 

cd 




CM 


in 


t ~ 

c» 

cd 


cd 


in 


•d 



cvi 

o 

9 

9 

5? 

in 

9 

9 

rf S§ 

in 

9 

9 

in 

9 

r- 

9 

9 

in 

9 

in 

9 

9 

r^. 

9 

in 

9 

in 

9 


9 

9 

9 

9 

in 

9 

^y 

9 

z 

UJ 

UJ 

LU 

UJ 

UJ 


LU 

t5f 

UJ 

LU 

Ul 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

Ul 

UJ 

UJ 


UJ 

UJ 

LU 

Ul 

UJ 

LU 

— J 

CO 

CO 

O 

§ 

CO 

— •• 

CM 

h- 

05 

05 

05 

m 

co 

CM 

co 

co 


co 




in 

05 

C/3 

05 

o 

▼— 

in 

“ ££s~ 

GO 

05 


in 

CO 

CM 




CO 

oo 

SrS"S 

in 


CO 

o 

T— 

O 

CO 

in 

cm 

CO 

in 



i^ 

05 

CM 

in 

V- . 


cd 

cd 


cd 


csi 

d 

-• 

•d 

cvi 

cd 

-J 

9 

9 

in 

o 

• 

in 

9 

9 

9 

in 

9 

9 

in 

9 

9 

05 

9 

in 

9 

m 

9 

9 

r- 

9 

in 

9 

m 

9 

in 

9 

9 

9 

r^ 

9 

9 

•*y 

9 

^y 

9 


UJ 

Ul 

UJ 

UJ 

Ul 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

■Rf 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

LU 

Ul 

UJ 

LU 

UJ 

UJ 

Ul 

LU 


o 

co 

CO 


CM 

CO 

in 

in 

05 

o 


GO 

CO 

CM 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CD 

CM 

TT 

o 


CO 

(/) 

CO 


in 

-t 

OO 


o 

co 


05 

CO 

CO 



9 

y- 

GO 

CO 

▼“ 

O 

co 

p 

GO 


05 

CO 

d 

r^* 

cd 


cd 

ad 


CM 





cd 

T~ 

cd 

CM 

cvi 

cd 

od 

cd 

T— 

in 




















































c- 

in 

CO 

co 

9 




in 

o 

05 

o 

in 




in 

r..r^.^vH 



c- 


CO 

co 

P 

«? 

«? 

9 

9 




o 

o 

9 

o 

4> 

9 

9 

9 

:-XXvXvX~.fi 

9 


9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

p 

LU 

UJ 

LU 

UJ 

Ul 




LU 

UJ 

UJ 

Ul 

LU 

Ri 

LU 

■f-- 

LU 


LU 

LU 

LU 

a 

LU 

LU 

z 

OO 

8 

O 

05 

•*y 




o- 

o 

05 

o 

CO 

CM 


O 



£ 

in 

05 

•o- 

CL 

05 

▼— 

in 

co 




in 

o 

CO 

o 

CO 

<*? 





M’ 

05 


in 

CO 


CO 


Cvi 

co 

05 




cd 

o 

in 

o 



cd 




in 

in 

od 

cd 


ad 


r>» 

J? 

TT 

9 


9 

in 

r*. 

in 

r^. 

05 

9 

CD 

<p 


in 


in 

r^- 

9 



in 

^y 

CE 

<=? 

9 


9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 


9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

O 

UJ 

UJ 

Ul 

UJ 


UJ 

LU 

Ul 

LU 

Ul 

LU 

Ul 

LU 

Ul 

LU 

UJ 


UJ 

LU 

LU 

LU 

UJ 

LU 

LU 

J 

oo 

£ 

▼— 

.35 


05 


in 


CO 

05 

in 

CM 

*^r 

CM 



s 

OO 

8 

CO 

in 

m 

05 

Q. 

05 

CM 


m 

co 

CM 


OO 

CO 

co 




9 



in 

00 

y— 

O 


CO 





in 

cvi 

05 

cvi 

in 

in 

cd 


cd 

cd 

05 


cd 

c\i 

ai 

cvi 


cvi 

ud 


r- 

h* 

m 

in 


cp 

in 


in 

i~- 

05 

<£ 

SP 

in 


in 




9 


9 

in 

*<y 

z 

9 

9 

9 

9 


9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 


9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

LU 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 


Ul 

Ul 

UJ 

Ul 

Ul 

Ul 

UJ 

LU 

UJ 

Ul 

UJ 


UJ 

LU 

UJ 

LU 

Ul 

LU 

LU 

X 

CD 

R 

05 

in 


r- 

GO 

CO 

r- 

CO 

05 

CO 


05 

CM 



CO 

TT 

CM 

in 

05 

m 

CO 

CL 

05 

CM 

<•< 


«? 

05 

o 

GO 

“? 

co 

9 

05 

“? 


T 



p 


oq 


y~ 

05 


CO 

ad 

in 

^y 


CO 

■*“ 


' r " 

CO 

in 

CM 


OO 

cd 



CM 




cd 

cvi 

cvi 



























CO 

9 

cp 

9 

cp 


in 

r*- 

in 

? 

05 

r- 

in 



9 

m 

. 

CO 

h- 

CO 


in 

ry 

—1 

9 

9 

9 


9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

Ippll 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

u. 

hi 

Ul 

UJ 

Ul 

Ul 


LU 

UJ 

UJ 

Ul 

LU 

Ul 

LU 

UJ 

UJ 

Ul 

LU 


LU 

LU 

UJ 

LU 

LU 

LU 

LU 

CO 

O 

o 

CM 

o 


OO 

1“*- 

CO 


05 


CM 

CO 

CM 


o- 


05 

m 

CM 

CO 

05 

CM 

CL 

o 



:W 

rr 


CO 

▼— 

r^. 

CM 

CO 

r^- 

*<r 





-•™ „-r x 

OO 

T— 

CM 

«y 

CO 

in 


T— 

oo 

cvi 

<r> 

cd 


▼- 

T“ 

cvi 

d 

in 


▼- 

d 

cd 

T- 

cd 



oi 

y— 

ci 

d 

cvi 



















































-J 

9 

9 

9 

? 

9 



WMM 

in 

9 


05 

9 


in 

9 

9 

9 


in 

9 


8 

« 


9 

9 

in 

9 

■*y 

9 

U- 

LU 

UJ 

UJ 

ut 

UJ 




LU 


UJ 


Ul 

Ul 

CM 

Ul 


UJ 


LU 

05 


UJ 

CO 

UJ 

CM 

LU 

in 

LU 


in 


o 

in 

05 




CM 











o 

CM 



o 

CO 

S-SfjRfflsS 



r^. 

SSSj-v. 

CO 


CM 

o 

i"- 


o 




oo 

o 

r- 

CO 


d 

▼— 

cvi 

• 

in 

llllllps 



cd 


in 


cvi 


cd 






cd 

od 

cd 

cd 


























—1 

r>- 

9 

9 

in 

9 

in 

9 

5? 

9 

in 

9 

9 

in 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

r- 

9 

in 

9 

m 

9 

in 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

in 

9 

9 

U- 

LU 

LU 

UJ 

UJ 

LU 

UJ 

Ul 

UJ 

LU 

Ul 

UJ 

UJ 

LU 

Ul 

LU 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

LU 

LU 

LU 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

z 

05 

o 

CM 

O 

GO 

CM 

o 

*7 

in 


CO 

CO 

o 

CO 

CO 

05 

GO 

s 

in 

05 

R 

Tf 

GO 

8 

o 

GO 

CM 

05 

•O' 

p 

5 

in 

p 

% 

m 

v— 

i^ 

CO 




d 

in 

d 

in 



cd 

cd 

▼“ 

CM 


V 

GO 

T* . 

cvi 

CM 


in 


05 

cvi 

d 


























z 

5? 

9 

in 

9 

9 


9 

in 

9 

r*. 

9 

in 

9 

fs- . 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 


9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

in 

9 

9 

LU 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 


UJ 

LU 

UJ 

LU 

UJ 

LU 

Rf 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 


UJ 

UJ 

Ul 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

LU 

Q 



co 

CM 


05 

OO 

s? 

CO 

CO 

05 


9 

h- 



CO 

05 

p 

05 


in 

05 

z 

CM 

«q 

CM 



*•* 

05 

•*r 

cq 

co 

9 

p 

CO 



h 


s 

CM 

OO 

y- 

in 


CO 


in 



T " 

*" 


cvi 

in 

in 

CM 

cvi 


cd 





cd 


05 

CM 

csi 

£ 

5? 

9 

in 

q> 

9 


9 

in 

9 

? 

in 

9 

r«- 

9 

9 

9 

GO 

9 

9 

9 

9 


9 

OO 

9 

9 

Ul 

9 

9 

in 

9 

^y 

9 

LU 

LU 

Ul 

Ui 


UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

LU 

UJ 

Ul 

Ul 

LU 

UJ 

UJ 

Ul 


Ul 

UJ 

Ul 

LU 

UJ 

LU 

> 



CO 

CO 


r^. 

CO 

CO 

■*r 


05 

CO 

CM 

05 

'O- 

r*- 


CM 

oo 

CM 

05 

ao 

m 

ao 


CD 


-o- 

T— 


co 

in 

o 

GO 


CO 

CM 


r*. 

y~ m 

O) 


05 

p 


P 

N 

y~~ 

p 


d 

T* 

05 



in 

CM 

— 

CM 

id 

in 


rr 

ai 





od 


cvi 

d 

CM 

cd 













' 






- 








S 





Hi 




















g 

























x: 





•V.V.- .V-V.7.W 


avavXvXvIIt 





05 











JS 


1 

s 

GO 

8 



<30 

oo 


§g§ 


§ 


•3iS 

2 

X 

o 





CD 

CD 

05 



0) 

c 

05 


CO 

CC 

Ol 

g 

2 

SZ 

o 

l 

CM 

! 

09 

£ 

8 

u_ 

O 

■g 

a 

8 

TJ 

5 

m 

CD 

• 

•S 

>% 

JZ 

05 

2 

3 

8 

05 

3 

>» 

f 

JH 

c 

« 

CL. 

c 

O" 

V 

£ 

a 

£ 

E 

o 

E 

3 

E 

T3 

£ 

C 

5 

c 

o 

•e 

g 

o 

o 

w 

2 

8 

1 

| 

o 

E 

3 

E 

o 

Z 

TD 

>• 

£ 

CD 

E 

i 

41 

CD 

g 

o 

■g 

8 

4> 

£ 

I 

>* 

x; 

§ 

k_ 

o 

u 

CD 

£ 

>* 

sz 

1 

o 

€ 

a> 

2 

u. 

o 

sz 

o 

">» 

8 

C 

o 

0) 

■*— 

TD 

< 



CM 


0 


< 

05 

0) 


« 

<0 

-c 

si 

JZ 

o 

O 

05 


*c 



T D 





< 

< 

< 

m 

m 

m 

m 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

u. 

u. 

z 

z 

h- 

i- 

> 

< 


189 











































Table 16-2. UATMP Cancer Risk Ranking by Site and Pollutant 



190 






















Table 16-2. UATMP Cancer Risk Ranking by Site and Pollutant (cont.) 


























C/1 


















siij. 






CM 

CM 

10 

CO 

•;TT^ 





CM 


m 


in 

<o 

CO 


CO 




Tj" 

05 

TT 

o 
























o 

CM 

CO 


zz 


GO 


r*- 

m 

CO 

20 

CM 

14 

in 

16 

GO 

<o 

CM 



05 

O 

19 


5 



















£v> 


K3 


CO 
























5 

o 

CO 

05 








in 


co 

CM 

CO 


CM 


TT 


•- 

GO 

in 

o 














2 ta 2222 










o 

v— 

o 

14 

05 

CM 

CO 


r*- 

15 

•M* 

20 

CM 


in 

CO 

T-* 

1 ^ 

GO 



05 

13 

CM 

GO 

co 

5 
















' 






V s v f 
















• —* * 
?• '*• 










X 
























o 

CM 

<o 

05 

CO 

GO 




■^r 


in 


m 


CO 


CM 


▼— 



10 

— 

1 - 
























o 






















■;>“ 


-j 

05 



CM 

o 


in 

r- 

*- 

05 

CM 

GO 

co 

co 

GO 


CO 


20 

CM 

m 

16 

tj- 

CO 




























* 




































































< 

CO 

r- 


m 

CO 

CO 

CM 


GO 

•M- 

«— 

CM 

23 


o 

T- 

20 

05 

CO 

GO 

22 

CO 

05 

15 

CM 

























1 

CM 

CO 

GO 




r*. 

17 


17 

CO 

17 

in 

T- 

CO 

17 

CO 

17 

- 

10 

05 

15 

CM 

CL 
















































cc 




: 


Hf 


m 


m 






: 




"aS- 




o 

LO 

12 

CM 



05 

CO 

13 

in 

14 

CM 

O 

20 


CO 

CO 


•a* 


GO 

GO 

19 

r- 

CL 






w&M 


«g — 


























.S 4 




1111 


































z 

X 



CM 

« 


▼— 

co 

in 


CO 

CM 

<NI 

CO 


GO 

GO 


•«r 

05 

o> 

20 

o 

in 

Q. 




•SSSssS 


:: • ■ 


. - ' ■ •:■ 




















iBl 














mm 


































rv.-.-.v.-ri- 


4A.V -- 




v •“•••„•• 


".y.\ • 


•~ ••- ~‘* A 


“a2““/Sv 




.•.-.v.r“A-.vr 


•.•.••.r/.v/.v.v 


_J 






.a; ...v. ?_ 


Ssw&Sm 




-••••• •-—_ 












LL. 

LU 

m 

05 

CM 


o 


r^- 

19 

m 


CM 

co 

CO 

CM 

r"- 

oo 

CO 


CO 

GO 

“T— 

•*r 

V 

▼“ 


CL 






:§IM 


■ • 




■ 


























y..y: 










—1 














~ 


.v-aSv;:*. 








Li- 

CE 

05 

CM 

O 

r— 

GO 






m 

M— 


in 

13 



CM 


ZI 



CO 

CO 

o 










p §| 






i pi 


















































SwaR-lvST 










•sssp 








■2-SSsag: 












—1 

U- 

o 

CM 

CM 

CO 

CM 

m 


GO 

?3 


a 

23 

co 

- 


GO 

05 

co 

in 


CO 

05 

o 

f^- 

z 











WSF 




IwfcSyjS 
















■psf| 
































W&M 








_ 






HvSSvr 


















z 

o 


14 

CM 



15 

in 

19 

CO 

a 

CM 

CM 

CO 

GO 

O) 



iO 


o 

co 

▼“ 

GO 

TT 

z 










. . r 


“V 






' : Wy$ 






























£ 

> 


13 


« 


O 

T- 

in 

15 


<o 

V“ 

CM 

CM 

20 

o» 

■M" 



CM 

05 

oo 

GO 

17 

CO 

—J 












§g T is 




^3»S; 




















•52 










••• 


















i 












i?fts3£2= 


~.~z - 








• .-.•••••? 


- - T. . 









O) 



••aSSSSy 








SSSsSS 













£ 

1 

2 

CO 




GO 




■ 


11111| 

0) 

32 



IIS 

iSfi 

Hi 


s 

2 


o 

c 





£ 

e 


SI 

CO 







o 




sz 

cn 



2 



o 

<0 


CO 

<7> 






55.r.r'-. •• 





CD 



■Ir'-v/SrS 

>s 

£ 


UATMP 

€ 

e 

a> 

*7 

CM 

CM 

2 

o 

■s 

1 

B 

% 

o 

JO 

o 

Q 

• 

CM 

2 

•o 

to 

•5 

m 

£ 

• 

>* 

-C 

Q> 

“O 

8 

< 

5 

1 

< 

Arsenic 

BAP 

Benzene (only) 

Beryllium 

E 

»— 

o 

o 

E 

o 

m 

Cadmium 

^Em 

o 

c 

£ 

c 

O 

-e 

<T3 

o 

Chloroform 

Chloromethar>€ 

Chromium 

<£ 

T3 

>* 

JO 

2 

CO 

E 

k- 

o 

u_ 

& 

>% 

1 

1 

2 
u. 

o 

■5 

2 

05 

>« 

£ 

0> 

Z 

Nickel 

JZ 

% 

o 

o 

£ 

o 

CO 

w_ 

»- 

>» 

JO 

1 

° 

Vinyl chloride 


191 





















Figure 16-2. NAAQS and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Lead 

(NAAQS=1.50 ug/cu m) 


T3 

d 

4 -> 

m 



c 

o 

0 



<£ 


o 

LO O 

LO 

o 

to 

CM 

• 

□ 

o o 

< 



PL, 

£ 

£ 


jajaui oiqno jad siuej6ojoj|/^ 


192 























Figure 16-3. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for 1,2- 

Dichloropropane (RfC=1.30 ppb) 




SX3M 

oozm 

SXIM 

oaiM 

HOH 

owns 

*IIVS 

XiNd 

UOld 

IWHd 

1d3d 

IdUO 

IdlW 

iwaw 

AXAl 2 
IWV1 CO 

idvr 

NIVH 

XllH 

Idld 

iwia 

xna 

iwaa 

HOIO 

PNVO 

HfrO 

1AU0 

V1H8 

1VHS 

V91V 


•ft 



| 


f; 




193 

































































Figure 16-4. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Acetaldehyde 

(RfC=5.00 ppb) 



uojinq jad sped 


194 


UATMP Study 


























































































Figure 16-5. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistcis for Acetaldehyde-1988 

(RfC=5.00 ppb) 




nvs 

UOId 

IWHd 

IdlW 

iwaw 

AXA1 

IWVT 

uvr 

NIVH 

X1LH 

iwia 

xna 

iwaa 

H010 

HfrO 

1AH9 

vnua 

ivHa 

voiv 


eoN<OIA<*nCMr-0 

uoiiijq jad sped 


195 


Sites 

























































Figure 16-6. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Acrolein-1988 

(RfC=8.72 E-3 ppb) 




in 

co 


CO 


in 

CM 


in 

o 


s 


uojHjq jadsjJBd 


nvs 

yoid 

IWHd 

IdlW 


ft 





-# 


mavi 

fCAM 

IWV1 

uvr 

NIVH 

«n 

XIIH ~ 
V) 

iwia 

xna 

iwaa 

hoio 

UK) 

1AUS 

vma 

1VH8 

V01V 



196 


UATMP Study 








































































Figure 16-7. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Bromomethane 

(RfC=1.29 ppb) 


< 

o 




mu)^rinni^MiAT-u)o 

<*> oi ^ o 

uojinq iad sped 


SX3M 

0Q3M 

SXIM 

oaiM 

HOH 

owns 

HVS 

XINd 

dCTId 

IWHd 

1d3d 

IddO 

IdlW 

i waw 

AX AT 
IWV1 

uvr 

NIVH 

XltH 

ldld 

iwia 

xna 

iwaa 

HOIO 

PNVO 

UtO 

lAd9 

vida 

1VH9 

V01V 




197 


Sites 


























Figure 16-8 . RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Chloroethane 

(RfC=4.93 E+3 ppb) 



198 
































Figure 16-9. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Chloroprene 

(RfC=1.93 ppb) 




io^fincou^<Min^-u)o 
^ CO oi ^ O 

uojinq jad sped 


SN2M 

oozm 

S)UM 

oaiw 

H011 

owns 

nvs 

XINd 

dOld 

IWHd 

1J3d 

IddO 

IdlW 

iwaw 

AN AT 
IWVT 
ldvr 
NIVH 
XitH 
Idld 
iwia 
xna 
iwaa 

H010 

PNVO 

UtO 

iAue 

viya 

ivHa 

voiv 


199 


Sites 













































Figure 16-10. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Ethyl benzene 

(RfC=2.30 E+2 ppb) 



200 


UATMP Study 




























Figure 16-11. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Manganese 

(RfC=4.00 E-1 ug/cu m) 




CNI OO <£> ^ CNI O 


i9)9Ui ojqno J9d suiej6oj3j^ 


OQZM 

oaiM 

owns 

nvs 

UOId 

IWHd 

1d3d 

IdlH 

man 

AXA1 

iwvi 

NIVH 

XllH 

Idld 

iwia 

xna 

iNsa 

H010 

PNV3 

IlfrO 

1AUS 

vida 

1VH9 

V91V 



201 


UATMP Study 
































Figure 16-12. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for p-Dichlorobenzene 

(RfC=1.33 E+2 ppb) 




SXZM 
0 QZfA 
SXIM 
oaiM 
H011 

owns 

nvs 

XINd 

UOId 

liniHd 

1d3d 

IdbO 

IdlW 

iwaw 

AXA1 

IWVT 

uvr 

NIVH 
XIIH 
Idld 

iwia 

xna 

iwaa 

HOIO 

rNvo 

UK) 

iAdS 

viua 

1VH9 

VOIV 


§ 

CM 




uojinq jad sped 


o 


o 

CM 


Sites 

























Figure 16-13. RfC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Toluene 

(RfC=1.06 E+2 ppb) 




uojinq Jdd sued 


vnua 

S'AZfA 

oazM 

S >UM 
oaiM 
HOH 

owns 

HVS 

XI Nd 

dOld 

IWHd 

1d3d 

IddO 

IdlW 

iwaw 

AXAl 

IWV1 

uvr 

NIVH 

XllH 

Idld 

iwia 

xna 

iwaa 

HOIO 

TNVO 

IlfrO 

lAaa 

1VH8 

VOIV 


203 


Sites 

















































Figure 16-14. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for 1,1,1- 

Trichloroethane (PEC=1.74 E+3 ppb) 



204 


UATMP Study 























Figure 16-15. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for 1,1- 

Dichloroethane (PEC=1.33 ppb) 




CN| T- oo (£> ^ CN O 


uojiijq jad sped 


SX2M 

oazM 

SXLM 

oaiM 

HOH 

owns 

HVS 

XINd 

dOld 

IWHd 

ld3d 

IdUO 

IdlW 

maw 

AMAH 

IWV1 

idvr 

NIVH 

XllH 

Idld 

iwia. 

xna 

iwaa 

H010 

PNVO 

UK) 

1AU8 

via a 

1VH8 

VD1V 


V) 

Q) 

c7) 


f. 

7 *. 


% 



I 




205 


UATMP Study 





















Figure 16-16. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Chlorobenzene 

(PEC=1.30 E+1 ppb) 




A*A1 2 
IHV1 

*uvr 


XllH 

Idld 

iwia 

xna 

iwaa 

H010 

PNVO 

* 11*0 

lAua 

viua 

1VH8 

V01V 


uojiuq jed sped 


206 


UATMP Study 




































Figure 16-17. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for Cobalt 

(PEC=7.00 E-2 ug/cu m) 




0Q2M 

oaiM 

owns 

nvs 

UOId 

IWHd 

ld3d 

IdlW 

iwaw 

AXA1 

IWV1 

NIVH CO 
oj 

XllH 55 
Idld 

iwia 

xna 

iwaa 

H010 

PNVO 

uto 

1AB9 

viua 

lVHa 

V91V 



jaiaiu ojqno jad sujbj6ojo!^ 



207 


UATMP Study 


























Figure 16-18. PEC and Ambient Monitoring Data Statistics for m/p-Xylene 

(PEC=1.38 ppb) 




IWQW £ 
AXA1 <73 
IWV1 

idvr 

NIVH 

xi m 

idid 

iwia 

xna 

iwaa 

H010 

PNVO 

n*o 

jjvua 

1VH9 

V01V 


uonijq jad sped 


UATMP Study 



























































Table 16-3. UATMP Hazard Quotient by Site and Pollutant 



ATGA 

BHAL 

BRLA 

BRVT 

C4IL 

CANJ 

CLOH 

DBMI 

DLTX 

DTMI 

1,1,1-Trichloroethan 

e 1.9E-4 

2.2E-4 

4.4E-4 

1.6E-4 

7.9E-4 

6.9E-4 

6.2E-4 

8.7E-5 

3.2E-4 

1.5E-4 

1,1-Dichloroethane 

1.5E-2 

2.2E-2 

1.5E-2 

1.5E-2 

1.8E-2 

1.5E-2 

1.5E-2 

1.7E-2 

1.7E-2 

1.5E-2 

1,2-Dichloropropan« 

i 6.3E-2 

4.9E-2 

1.1E-1 

4.6E-2 

1.1E-1 

6.2E-2 

7.9E-2 

4.2E-2 

3.5E-2 

3.6E-2 

Acetaldehyde • all 

• 


3.1E-1 


3.3E-1 

3.9E-1 



2.5E-1 


Acetaldehyde-1988 

3.3E-1 

4.1E-1 

2.6E-1 

1.9E-1 

2.4E-1 


3.4E-1 

2.6E-1 

2.6E-1 

3.1E-1 

Acrolein* 1988 

6.9E+0 

6.9E+0 

3.4E+0 

5.7E+0 

4.6E+0 


5.7E+0 

5.7E+0 

4.6E+0 

6.9E+0 

Bromomethane 

7.8E-2 

7.8E-2 

7.8E-2 

7.8E-2 

7.8E-2 

2.0E-1 

7.8E-2 

2.2E-1 

7.8E-2 

7.8E-2 

Chlorobenzene 

5.1E-3 

1.2E-2 

3.7E-3 

6.0E-3 

5.2E-3 

1.5E-3 

7.3E-3 

7.0E-3 

1.7E-3 

1.2E-2 

Chloroethane 

1.0E-5 

1.0E-5 

1.2E-5 

1.0E-5 

5.3E-5 

1.2E-5 

1.1E-5 

1.8E-5 

1.0E-5 

8.1E-5 

Chloroprene 

6.8E-2 

2.6E-2 

3.8E-2 

3.0E-2 

6.7E-2 

3.7E-2 

1.6E-2 

2.6E-2 

2.4E-2 

3.2E-2 

Cobalt 

5.3E-3 

7.1 E-3 

6.9E-3 

5.6E-3 

8.8E-3 

1.1E-2 

1.9E-2 

1.5E-2 

5.2E-3 

1.8E-2 

Ethyl benzene 

7.6E-4 

2.0E-2 

1.9E-3 

1.3E-3 

2.5E-3 

1.5E-3 

9.3E-4 

1.1 E-3 

6.5E-4 

1.2E-3 

Lead 

2.8E-2 

3.5E-2 

2.4E-2 

2. IE-2 

5.0E-2 

2.2E-2 

2.5E-1 

6.5E-2 

1.6E-2 

4.7E-2 

m/p-Xylene 

2.3E+0 

3.0E+0 

1.3E+0 

3.1E+0 

2.8E+0 

1.3E+0 

2.4E+0 

1.9E+0 

1.2E+0 

3.1 E+0 

Manganese 

7.8E-2 

9.5E-2 

4.1E-2 

8.7E-2 

3.3E-1 

2.3E-2 

4.9E-1 

1.2E+0 

4.7E-2 

2.1E-1 

p-Dichlorobenzene 

3.0E-3 

4.4E-3 

1.9E-3 

1.3E-3 

1.1E-3 

1.6E-3 

3.8E-3 

1.1 E-3 

1.3E-3 

5.2E-3 

Toluene 

2.0E-2 

2.5E-2 

2.4E-2 

2.4E-2 

7.6E-2 

3.3E-2 

3.1E-2 

1.5E-2 

2.6E-2 

3.0E-2 



FLFL 

H1TX 

HAIN 

JAFL 

LAMI 

LVKY 

MDMI 

MIFL 

ORFL 

PEFL 

1,1,1-Trichloroethane 

2.5E-4 

3.7E-4 

9.5E-5 

3.0E-4 

7.1E-5 

2.6E-4 

3.5E-4 

6.6E-4 

2.1 E-3 

8.5E-4 

1,1-Dichloroethane 

2.5E-2 

3.4E-2 

1.5E-2 

1.5E-2 

1.5E-2 

2.2E-2 

1.5E-2 

1.5E-2 

3.2E-2 

1.7E-2 

1,2-Dichloropropane 

1.3E-1 

1.5E-1 

4.3E-2 

2.5E-2 

3.5E-2 

6.1 E-2 

2.7E-2 

2.2E-1 

5.8E-2 

4.0E-2 

Acetaldehyde - all 

2.6E-1 

2.7E-1 






2.3E-1 

2.9E-1 

1.7E-1 

Acetaldehyde-1988 


4.6E-1 

2.7E-1 

2.1E-1 

1.8E-1 

3.0E-1 

7.0E-2 

2.6E-1 



Acrolein-1988 


6.9E+0 

3.4E+0 

5.7E+0 

3.4E+0 

6.9E+0 

3.4E+0 

5.7E+0 



Bromomethane 

7.8E-2 

7.7E-2 

7.8E-2 

7.8E-2 

7.8E-2 

7.8E-2 

7.8E-2 

8.0E-2 

1 .IE-1 

7.6E-2 

Chlorobenzene 

1.2E-3 

5.5E-3 

1.0E-2 

9.2E-3 

2.6E-3 

1.2E-2 

1.8E-2 

1.0E-2 

3.9E-3 

1.6E-3 

Chloroethane 

1.1E-5 

1.0E-5 

1.0E-5 

1.1E-5 

1.0E-5 

1.0E-5 

7.5E-5 

1.2E-5 

1.0E-5 

1.0E-5 

Chloroprene 

3.7E-2 

1.2E-1 

1.3E-1 

1.6E-2 

1.6E-2 

4.2E-2 

1.6E-2 

4.5E-2 

4.0E-2 

2.6E-2 

Cobalt 

7.9E-3 

6.6E-3 

7.4E-3 


1.2E-2 

2.0E-2 

5.5E-3 

5.4E-3 


2.9E-3 

Ethyl benzene 

2.4E-3 

1.9E-3 

5.0E-4 

2.2E-3 

1.2E-3 

2.7E-3 

5.5E-4 

2.3E-3 

3.8E-3 

1.2E-3 

Lead 

2.0E-2 

1.3E-2 

4.9E-2 


1.5E-2 

5.1 E-2 

1.1 E-2 

2.0E-2 

1.1 E-3 

2.7E-3 

m/p-Xylene 

2.4E+0 

1.9E+0 

1.7E+0 

2.3E+0 

2.7E+0 

4.4E+0 

1.0E+0 

2.9E+0 

2.6E+0 

8.5E-1 

Manganese 

3.3E-2 

7.4E-2 

5.7E-1 


5.6E-2 

1.8E-1 

3.8E-2 

3.0E-2 


9.5E-3 

p-Dichiorobenzene 

8.6E-4 

2.0E-3 

3.5E-3 

5.3E-3 

3.5E-3 

3.2E-3 

1.2E-3 

4.4E-3 

9.4E-4 

1.3E-3 

Toluene 

4.4E-2 

3.6E-2 

2.3E-2 

2.1 E-2 

2.6E-2 

6.6E-2 

1.9E-2 

4.4E-2 

1.8E-1 

5.3E-2 


209 
































Table 16-3. UATMP Hazard Quotient by Site and Pollutant (cont.) 



PHMI 

PLOR 

PNTX 

SAIL 

SLMO 

TLOH 

W1DC 

W1KS 

W2DC 

W2KS 

1,1,1-Trichloroethane 

8.4E-4 

1.3E-4 

2.5E-4 

1.4E-3 

7.3E-4 

4.8E-4 

7.5E-4 

3.0E-4 

3.4E-4 

2.2E-4 

1,1-Dichloroethane 

1.5E-2 

1.5E-2 

1.5E-2 

1.8E-2 

1.5E-2 

1.6E-2 

1.9E-2 

1.5E-2 

1.6E-2 

1.6E-2 

1,2-Dichloropropane 

2.7E-2 

1.1E-1 

7.4E-2 

9.5E-2 

6.4E-2 

8.9E-2 

1.0E-1 

5.8E-2 

7.6E-2 

6.2E-2 

Acetaldehyde - all 



4.7E-1 

1.9E-1 

2.8E-1 

1.8E-1 

7.2E-1 

2.8E-1 

4.1E-1 

2.0E-1 

Acetaldehyde-1988 

1.7E-1 

2.8E-1 


2.1E-1 







Acrolein-1988 

2.3E+0 

5.7E+0 


4.6E+0 







Bromomethane 

7.8E-2 

7.8E-2 

7.8E-2 

7.8E-2 

7.8E-2 

7.8E-2 

7.7E-2 

7.9E-2 

7.7E-2 

7.7E-2 

Chlorobenzene 

3.5E-3 

1.5E-2 

8.4E-4 

4.9E-2 

2.7E-2 

2.4E-3 

8.3E-4 

1.0E-3 

9.3E-4 

1.6E-3 

Chloroethane 

3.2E-5 

1.1E-5 

1.0E-5 

1.4E-5 

1.4E-5 

1.0E-5 

1.0E-5 

1.0E-5 

1.3E-5 

1.0E-5 

Chloroprene 

3.3E-2 

4.5E-2 

3.7E-2 

8.0E-2 

7.6E-2 

2.6E-2 

3.7E-2 

2.6E-2 

9.1E-2 

2.5E-2 

Cobalt 

5.9E-3 

2.8E-2 


9.9E-3 

1.4E-2 


1.2E-2 


1.4E-2 


Ethyl benzene 

7.8E-4 

1.0E-3 

1.7E-3 

3.6E-3 

4.0E-3 

8.9E-4 

1.8E-3 

9.8E-4 

2.2E-3 

1.1E-3 

Lead 

2.3E-2 

3.8E-2 

0.0E+0 

1.0E-1 

8.0E-2 


2.3E-2 


2.4E-2 


m/p-Xylene 

1.3E+0 

3.0E+0 

5.7E-1 

3.8E+0 

3.9E+0 

8.8E-1 

1.4E+0 

7.8E-1 

1.9E+0 

1.0E+0 

Manganese 

5.1E-2 

2.1E-1 


1.2E-1 

8.7E-2 


4.9E-2 


6.4E-2 


p-Dichlorobenzene 

6.3E-4 

6.2E-2 

9.4E-4 

1.4E-2 

5.7E-3 

8.4E-4 

9.5E-4 

7.9E-4 

1.2E-3 

7.2E-4 

Toluene 

2.2E-2 

2.3E-2 

2.4E-2 

5.7E-2 1 

5.3E-2 

2.8E-2 

4.4E-2 

1.6E-2 

3.9E-2 

1.7E-2 


210 
















REFERENCES 


1. Development of Interim Noncancer Health Effects Preliminary Evaluation 
Concentrations for Screening Study of Hazardous Air Pollutants . Draft Final Report, 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Pollutant Assessment Branch, Research 
Triangle Park, NC. 

2. Baltimore Integrated Environmental Management Project: Phase II Ambient Air 

Toxics Report . EPA-230/R-92-013. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Policy, 
Planning and Evaluation, Washington, DC. February 1992. 

3. Hornung, R., Reed, L. "Estimation of Average Concentrations in the Presence of 
Non-detectable Values." AppI. Occupational Environ. Hygiene . 5(1). 1990. 

4. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), On-Line. U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Environmental Criteria 
Assessment Office, Cincinnati, Ohio. 1994. 

5. Cancer Risk Assessment Guidelines of 1986 . Final Report, EPA-600/8-87-045. U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. August 1987. 

6. Interim Methods for Development of Inhalation Reference Concentrations . EPA 
600/8-90-066A. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and 
Development, Washington, D.C. 1990. 

7. Calabrese, E.J., and E.M. Kenyon. Air Toxics and Risk Assessment . Lewis 
Publishers, Inc. 1991. 

8. Documentation of De minimis Emission Rates - Proposed 40 CFR Part 63. 

Subpart B. Background Document . Interim Draft, EPA-453/R-93-035. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Emission Standards Division, Research 
Triangle Park, NC. February 1994. 

9. Technical Background Document to Support Rulemaking Pursuant to the Clean Air 

Act Section 112(g). Ranking of Pollutants with Respect to Hazard to Human Health . 

EPA-450/3-92-010. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality 
Plannning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. 1992. 

10. Health Assessment Document for Polychlorinated Dibenzodioxins . EPA-600/8-84- 
014f. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1984. 

11. Interim Procedures for Estimating Risks Associated with Exposures to Mixtures of 

Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins and Dibenzofurans (CDDs and CPFs) and 1989 

Update . EPA-625/3-89-016. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Risk 
Assessment Forum, Washington D.C. 1989. 

12. Hunt, G.T., Maisel, B.E. "Atmospheric PCDDs/PCDFs in Wintertime in a 
Northeastern U.S. Urban Coastal Environment." Chemosohere . 20:1455-1462. 1990. 


211 



















13. Variability and Source Attribution of Hazardous Air Pollutants - Columbus Field 

Study . Draft Report. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and 
Development, Atmospheric Research and Exposure Assessment Laboratory, Research 
Triangle Park, NC. 

14. Cupitt, L.T., et al. "Exposure and Risk from Ambient Particle-Bound Pollution in an 
Airshed Dominated by Residential Wood Combustion and Mobile Sources." 
Environmental Health Perspectives — publication pending. 

15. Nonoccupational Pesticide Exposure Study (NOPES) . Final Report, 

EPA-600/3-90-003. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and 
Development, Atmospheric Research and Exposure Assessment Laboratory, Research 
Triangle Park, NC. January 1990. 

16. Edgerton, S.A., et. al. "Ambient Air Concentrations of Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p- 
dioxins and Dibenzofurans in Ohio: Sources and Health Risk Assessment." 
Chemosphere . 18:1713-1730. 1989. 

17. Hunt, G.T., Maisel, B.E. "Atmospheric Concentrations of PCDDs/PCDFs in Southern 
California." J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc. . 42: 672-680. 1992. 

18. Staten Island/New Jersey Urban Air Toxics Assessment Project Report. Volumes I- 

VI, EPA-902/R-93-001, a - h. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II, 

New York, NY. January 1993. 

19. Data Summary Supplement to the Initial Analyses of Ambient Toxics and Volatile 

Organic Compound Data . Texas Air Control Board, Data Management and Analysis 
Division. June 1992. 

20. Urban Air Toxics Monitoring Program . EPA-450/4-87-022. U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle 
Park, NC. September 1987. 


212 












APPENDIX A 

POLLUTANT SUMMARY LIST, SAMPLE SPREADSHEET AND 
METHOD DETECTION LEVELS FOR AMBIENT MONITORING PROGRAMS 


Table A-1. Summary of Pollutants Included in Ambient Monitoring Programs 


AQfUS 

UATMP 


X 

X 



X 

X 

X 


X 

X 


X 


X 

X 





X 




X 

X 

X 


X 

X 

TNRCC 

X 



X 






X 















X 




X 


SW Ohio 










X 


X 











X 


X 

X 



X 


Staten 

Island 






X 

X 

X 


X 



X 








X 




X 


X 



X 

SCAQMD 










X 





















Lake 

Michigan 





X 









X 








X 


X 







Columbus 


X 

X 


X 




X 

X 


X 


X 



X 





X 


X 

X 


X 

X 

X 


CARB 










X 















X 






Baton 
Rouge, LA 










X 





















BAAQMD 










X 





















Atlanta, 

GA 


X 








X 








X 

X 

X 












POLLUTANT* 

Acetonitrile 

Acetylene 

Acrolein 

Acrylonitrile 

Aluminum 

Arsenic 

BAP 

Barium 

Benzaldehyde 

Benzene 

Benzene/1,2-Dichloroethane 

Benzyl chloride 

Beryllium 

Bromine 

Bromochloromethane 

Bromodichloromethane 

Butanal 

c-2-Butene 

c-2-Hexene 

c-2-Pentene 

Cadmium 

Calcium 

Carbon disulfide 

Chlorine 

Chlorobenzene 

Chloroprene 

E 

Z3 

E 

2 

O 

cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 

cis-1,3-Dichloropropylene (cis-1,3- 

Dichloropropene) 

Cobalt 


CAS# 

75-05-8 

CM 

i 

CO 

CO 

• 

107-02-8 

107-13-1 

7429-90-5 

7440-38-2 

50-32-8 

-- - 

7440-39-3 

100-52-7 

CM 

£ 

mixture 

100-44-7 

7440-41-7 

7726-95-6 

74-97-5 

75-27-4 

123-72-8 

590-18-1 

7688-21-3 

627-20-3 

7440-43-9 

7440-70-2 

75-15-0 

7782-50-5 

108-90-7 

126-99-8 

7440-47-3 

156-59-2 

10061-01-5 

7440-48-4 


A-4 


Alternate names for pollutants are listed in parentheses; pollutants separated by a V indicates a mixture. 





















































Table A-1. Summary of Pollutants Included in Ambient Monitoring Programs 


STUDY 

UATMP 

X 






X 


X 

X 



X 

X 








X 





X 

X 


X 

X 

TNRCC 



X 






X 

X 



X 








X 









X 


SW Ohio 



X 






X 

X 



X 






X 

X 










X 


Staten 

Island 

X 








X 




X 

X 






X 


X 





X 

X 


X 

X 

SCAQMD 












X 

X 

X 
















X 


Lake 

Michigan 






















X 





X 




X 

Columbus 

X 

X 






X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 



X 

X 

X 



X 

X 


X 

X 

CARB 









X 



X 

X 

X 














X 

X 



Baton 
Rouge, LA 



X 






X 











X 




X 





X 

X 


BAAQMD 












X 

X 



















Atlanta, 

GA 




X 

X 

X 


X 

X 


X 



X 









X 

X 

X 

X 




X 



POLLUTANT* 

Copper 

Crotonal 

Cumene 

Cydohexane/2-methylhexane 

Cyclopentane/2,3-dimethylbutane 

Cyclopentene/4-methyl-1 -pentene 

Dibromochloromethane 

Ethane 

Ethyl benzene 

Ethyl chloride (Chloroethane) 

Ethylene (Ethene) 

Ethylene Dibromide (1,2-Dibromoethane) 

Ethylene Dichloride (1,2-Dichloroethane) 

Formaldehyde 

Freon-11 

Freon-113 

T“ 

t 

o 

£ 

LL 

Freon-12 

Hexachlorobutadiene 

Hexane 

lodomethane 

Iron 

Isobutane 

Isopentane 

Isoprene 

Isopropylbenzene 

Lead 

m-Dichlorobenzene 

m-Xylene 

m/p-Xylene 

Manganese 


CAS# 

7440-50-8 

4170-30-3 

CO 

• 

CM 

00 

i 

oo 

o> 

mixture 

mixture 

mixture 

124-48-1 

74-84-0 

100-41-4 

75-00-3 

74-85-1 

106-93-4 

107-06-2 

50-00-0 


76-13-1 


11126-05-9 

87-68-3 

110-54-3 

i 

00 

00 

1 

h- 

7439-89-6 

75-28-5 

78-78-4 

78-79-5 

98-82-8 

7439-92-1 

95-50-1 

108-38-3 

1330-20-7 

7439-96-5 


A-5 


•Alternate names for pollutants are listed in parentheses; pollutants separated by a V indicates a mixture. 















































Table A-1. Summary of Pollutants Included In Ambient Monitoring Programs 


>- 

Q 

3 

H 

CO 

UATMP 



X 

X 

X 





X 


X 




X 

X 



X 

X 



X 







TNRCC 


X 

X 

X 

X 

X 




X 

X 








X 


X 

X 


X 







SW Ohio 



X 

X 

X 





X 









X 



X 


X 







Staten 

Island 

X 




X 





X 


X 








X 

X 

X 


X 







SCAQMD 





X 

















X 









Lake 

Michigan 




























X 

X 


Columbus 



X 

X 

X 





X 



X 







X 

X 

X 


X 


X 

X 


X 

X 

CARB 





X 





X 











X 

X 


X 

X 






Baton 
Rouge, LA 







X 

X 



t 


X 

X 


X 






X 




X 





BAAQMD 





X 





X 





















Atlanta, 

GA 







X 


X 




X 

X 

X 

X 


X 





X 



X 






POLLUTANT* 

<5 

2 

Methanol 

Methyl bromide (Bromomethane) 

Methyl chloride (Chloromethane) 

Methyl Chloroform (1,1,1-Trichloroethane) 

Methyl t-butylether 

Methylcyclohexane 

Methylcyclopentane 

Methylcyclopentane/2,4-dimethylpentane 

Methylene chloride (Dichloromethane) 

Methylisobutylketone 

Molybdenum 

n-Butane 

n-Heptane 

n-Hexane 

n-Octane 

n-Octane/t-1,3-dichloropropylene 

n-Propylbenzene 

Naphthalene 

Nickel 

o-Dichlorobenzene 

o-Xylene 

o-Xylene/n-nonane 

p-Dichlorobenzene (1,4-Dichlorobenzene) 

p-Xylene 

Pentane (n-pentane) 

Phosphorus 

Polychlorinated biphenyls 

Potassium 

Propanal 


CAS# 

7439-97-6 

67-56-1 

74-83-9 

74-87-3 

71-55-6 

1634-04-4 

04 

i 

qo 

l 

00 

o 

96-37-7 

mixture 

75-09-2 

i 

o 

• 

oo 

o 

7439-98-7 

106-97-8 

142-82-5 

100-54-3 

111-65-9 

mixture 

103-65-1 

91-20-3 

7440-02-0 

541-73-1 

95-47-6 

mixture 

106-46-7 

106-42-3 

109-66-0 

7723-14-0 

1336-36-3 

7440-09-7 

123-38-6 


A-6 


Alternate names for pollutants are listed in parentheses; pollutants separated by a 7" indicates a mixture. 





















































Table A-1. Summary of Pollutants Included in Ambient Monitoring Programs 


STUDY 

UATMP 


X 




X 





X 

X 


X 


X 

X 

X 

X 


X 

X 



X 

X 

in 

TNRCC 





X 






X 

X 


X 



X 

X 


X 

X 


X 

X 

X 


3 

SW Ohio 





X 






X 

X 


X 



X 

X 



X 




X 


CD 

CO 

Staten 

Island 





X 






X 

X 


X 




X 

X 


X 

X 




X 

co 

CO 

SCAQMD 











X 

X 


X 





X 


X 




X 


m 

Lake 

Michigan 




X 



X 





















Columbus 

X 

X 


X 

X 


X 




X 

X 

X 

X 



X 


X 


X 




X 

X 

’’T 

1^ 

CARB 





X 






X 

X 


X 





X 


X 






Si 

Baton 
Rouge, LA 

x 













X 













T— 

CM 

BAAQMD 











X 

X 


X 





X 


X 




X 


T— 

Atlanta, 

GA 

X 

X 



X 



X 

X 

X 





X 












O 

m 


POLLUTANT* 

Propane 

Propylene (Propene) 

Selenium 

Silicon 

Styrene 

Styrene/o-xylene 

Sulfur 

t-2-Butene 

t-2-Hexene 

t-2-Pentene 

Tetrachloroethylene (Tetrachloroethene or 
Perchloroethylene) 

Tetrachloromethane (Carbon tetrachloride) 

Titanium 

Toluene 

Toluene/2-methylheptane 

trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 

trans-1,3-Dichloropropylene (trans-1,3- 
Dichloropropene) 

Tribromomethane (Bromoform) 

Trichloroethylene (Trichloroethene) 

Trichloroethylene / BCM 

Trichloromethane (Chloroform) 

Vanadium 

Vinyl acetate 

Vinyl bromide 

Vinyl chloride 

Zinc 

Total Number of Pollutants 


CAS# 

74-98-6 

115-07-1 

7782-49-2 

7440-21-3 

100-42-5 

mixture 

7704-34-9 

624-64-6 

4050-45-7 

646-04-8 

127-18-4 

56-23-5 

7440-32-6 

108-88-3 

<1) 

1 

E 

156-60-5 

10061-02-6 

75-25-2 

9-I.0-6Z 

mixture 

67-66-3 

7440-62-2 

108-05-4 

593-60-2 

75-01-4 

7440-66-6 



A-7 


Alternate names for pollutants are listed in parentheses; pollutants separated by a V indicates a mixture. 











































Table A-2. Summary of Dioxins, Furans, and Pesticides Included in Ambient 

Monitoring Programs 



STUDY 

CAS * 

Pollutant 

Lake 

Michigan* 

NOPES 

Bridgeport, 

CT 

Ohio 

Southern 

California 

DIOXINS and 

FURANS 

57117-41-6 

1,2,3,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzofuran (PeCDF) 



X 

X 

X 

57117-31-4 

2,3,4,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzofuran (PeCDF) 



X 

X 

X 

35822-46-9 

2,3,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (HpCDD) 



X 

X 

X 

67562-39-4 

2,3,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzofuran (HpCDF) 



X 

X 

X 

39227-28-6 

2,3,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (HxCDD) 



X 

X 

X 

70648-26-9 

2,3,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzofuran (HxCDF) 



X 

X 

X 

3268-87-9 

2,3,7,8-Octochlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (OCDD) 



X 

X 

X 

39001-02-0 

2,3,7,8-Octochlorodibenzofuran (OCDF) 



X 

X 

X 

40321-76-4 

2,3,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (PeCDD) 



X 

X 

X 

1746-01-6 

2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 



X 

X 

X 

51207-31-9 

2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzofuran (TCDF) 



X 

X 

X 

PESTICIDES 

94-75-7 

2,4-Dichlorophenoxy acetic acid 


X 




72-58-8 

4,4'-DDD 


X 




72-55-9 

4,4'-DDE 


X 




50-29-3 

4,4'-DDT 

X 

X 





Alachlor 

X 





309-00-2 

Aldrin 

X 

X 




319-84-6 

alpha-BHC (alpha HCH) 

X 

X 




1912-24-9 

Atrazine 

X 

X 




22781-23-1 

Bendiocarb 


X 




133-06-2 

Captan 


X 




63-25-2 

Carbaryl 


X 




57-74-9 

Chlordane 


X 




1897-45-6 

Chlorothalonil 


X 



• 

2921-88-2 

Chlorpyrifos 


X 




52645-53-1 

cis-Permethrin 


X 




1861-32-1 

Dacthal 


X 




333-41-5 

Diazinon 


X 




62-73-7 

Dichlorvos 


X 




115-32-2 

Dicofol 


X 




60-57-1 

Dieldrin 

X 

X 




133-07-3 

Folpet 


X 




58-89-9 

gamma-BHC (lindane) 

X 

X 




76-44-8 

Heptachlor 


X 




1024-57-3 

Heptachlor epoxide 


X 




118-74-1 

Hexachlorobenzene 

X 

X 




121-75-5 

Malathion 

* 

X 





Metolachlor 

X 





72-43-5 

Methoxychlor 


X 





Mirex 

X 





90-43-7 

ortho-Phenylphenol 


X 





Oxychlordane 


X 




114-26-1 

Propoxur 


X 




10453-86-8 

ftesmethrin 


X 




299-84-3 

Ronnel 


X 





trans-nonachlor 

X 






trans-Permethrin 


X 





Total Number of Pollutants 

11 

32 

11 

11 

11 


* The Lake Michigan Study also monitored for metals, as shown in Table A-1. 


A-8 











































































Table A-3. Sample Spreadsheet of Summary Statistics for SCAQMD 


Site Name 

Cas # 

Pollutant 

No. of 
Samples 
(n) 

Average 

Cone. 

(ppbv) 

Standard 

Deviation 

Max 

Cone. 

(ppbv) 

Geometric 

Mean 

(ppbv) 

Anaheim 

71-55-6 

1,1,1-trichloroethane 

220 

3.81 

2.79 

15.00 

3.02 

Anaheim 

106-93-4 

1,2-dibromoethane 

220 

0.06 

0.03 

0.25 

0.05 

Anaheim 

107-06-2 

1,2-dichloroethane 

220 

7.98 

1.62 

10.50 

7.43 

Anaheim 

106-99-0 

1,3-Butadiene 

205 

0.17 

0.09 

0.80 

0.15 

Anaheim 

75-07-0 

Acetaldehyde 

189 

0.65 

0.73 

2.40 

0.32 

Anaheim 

71-43-2 

Benzene 

221 

2.51 

1.63 

8.70 

2.05 

Anaheim 

75-01-4 

Chloroethene 

223 

0.74 

0.44 

2.50 

0.53 

Anaheim 

50-00-0 

Formaldehyde 

219 

1.38 

1.50 

7.70 

0.73 

Anaheim 

95-47-6 

o-Xylene 

205 

1.15 

0.97 

5.10 

0.91 

Anaheim 

1330-20-7 

m/p-Xylene 

211 

1.41 

1.36 

8.00 

1.06 

Anaheim 

127-18-4 

Tetrachloroethene 

223 

1.42 

2.90 

39.00 

0.83 

Anaheim 

56-23-5 

T etrachloromethane 

220 

0.29 

1.24 

13.00 

0.15 

Anaheim 

108-88-3 

Toluene 

232 

6.10 

4.02 

19.00 

4.81 

Anaheim 

79-01-6 

Trichloroethene 

220 

0.30 

0.63 

6.20 

0.15 

Anaheim 

67-66-3 

Trichloromethane 

220 

0.21 

0.09 

0.90 

0.20 

Azusa 

71-55-6 

1,1,1-trichloroethane 

220 

3.70 

2.24 

14.00 

3.12 

Azusa 

106-93-4 

1,2-dibromoethane 

221 

0.06 

0.08 

0.98 

0.05 

Azusa 

107-06-2 

1,2-dichloroethane 

221 

8.01 

1.68 

15.00 

7.45 

Azusa 

106-99-0 

1,3-Butadiene 

204 

0.16 

0.06 

0.50 

0.15 

Azusa 

75-07-0 

Acetaldehyde 

201 

0.60 

0.73 

2.90 

0.27 

Azusa 

71-43-2 

Benzene 

221 

2.06 

1.49 

11.00 

1.70 

Azusa 

75-01-4 

Chloroethene 

222 

0.75 

0.45 

2.50 

0.54 

Azusa 

50-00-0 

Formaldehyde 

229 

0.98 

1.11 

4.60 

0.49 

Azusa 

95-47-6 

o-Xylene 

204 

0.87 

0.45 

1.90 

0.76 

Azusa 

1330-20-7 

m/p-Xylene 

209 

1.23 

1.05 

4.80 

0.91 

Azusa 

127-18-4 

Tetrachloroethene 

222 

. 1.47 

2.90 

32.00 

0.83 

Azusa 

56-23-5 

T etrachloromethane 

221 

0.20 

0.80 

12.00 

0.15 

Azusa 

108-88-3 

Toluene 

230 

5.83 

3.65 

22.00 

4.68 

Azusa 

79-01-6 

Trichloroethene 

221 

0.38 

0.54 

3.30 

0.21 

Azusa 

67-66-3 

Trichloromethane 

221 

0.20 

0.03 

0.56 

0.20 

Pico Rivera 

75-07-0 

Acetaldehyde 

12 

2.23 

1.43 

5.90 

1.72 

Pico Rivera 

50-00-0 

Formaldehyde 

12 

2.17 

1.17 

4.60 

1.47 


A-9 














Table A-3. Sample Spreadsheet of Summary Statistics for SCAQMD (cont.) 


Site Name 

Cas # 

Percentile 

Value of 
One-half 
MDL 

% of Values 
Above MDL 

99 

95 

90 

75 

50 

25 

Anaheim 

71-55-6 

13.00 

9.69 

7.49 

4.80 

2.95 

1.80- 

0.01 

99.55 

Anaheim 

106-93-4 

0.25 

0.05 

0.05 

0.05 

0.05 

0.05 


0.91 

Anaheim 

107-06-2 

10.50 

10.50 

10.50 

7.50 

7.50 

7.50 


0.00 

Anaheim 

106-99-0 

0.60 

0.30 

0.25 

0.17 

0.14 

0.13 

1 

15.61 

Anaheim 

75-07-0 

2.33 

2.09 

1.88 

0.93 

0.25 

0.10 


100.00 

Anaheim 

71-43-2 

7.56 

5.62 

4.91 

3.33 

2.05 

1.00 

1.5 

68.33 

Anaheim 

75-01-4 

2.50 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

0.70 

0.2 

0.00 

Anaheim 

50-00-0 

6.35 

4.90 

3.40 

1.85 

0.97 

0.28 


100.00 

Anaheim 

95-47-6 

4.94 

1.94 

1.71 

1.40 

1.05 

0.50 


100.00 

Anaheim 

1330-20-7 

6.91 

2.50 

2.30 

1.65 

1.20 

0.50 


100.00 

Anaheim 

127-18-4 

7.59 

4.60 

2.70 

1.50 

0.72 

0.43 

1 

99.10 

Anaheim 

56-23-5 

6.60 

0.25 

0.20 

0.15 

0.14 

0.13 

0.115 

98.64 

Anaheim 

108-88-3 

17.00 

14.00 

12.00 

8.30 

5.00 

0.05 

0.1 

86.21 

Anaheim 

79-01-6 

2.44 

1.20 

0.54 

0.27 

0.12 

0.05 

0.05 

45.00 

Anaheim 

67-66-3 

0.77 

0.20 

0.20 

0.20 

0.20 

0.20 

10.5 

2.73 

Azusa 

71-55-6 

11.82 

7.94 

6.50 

4.70 

3.20 

2.20 

0.01 

99.09 

Azusa 

106-93-4 

0.47 

0.05 

0.05 

0.05 

0.05 

0.05 


2.26 

Azusa 

107-06-2 

10.50 

10.50 

10.50 

7.50 

9.00 

7.50 


0.45 

Azusa 

106-99-0 

0.40 

0.30 

0.20 

0.16 

0.14 

0.13 

1 

13.73 

Azusa 

75-07-0 

2.59 

1.67 

1.60 

1.15 

0.10 

0.10 


100.00 

Azusa 

71-43-2 

7.98 

4.81 

3.61 

2.60 

1.50 

1.00 

1.5 

55.20 

Azusa 

75-01-4 

2.50 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

0.63 

0.2 

0.00 

Azusa 

50-00-0 

4.50 

3.34 

2.70 

1.60 

0.41 

0.15 


100.00 

Azusa 

95-47-6 

1.87 

1.65 

1.50 

1.23 

0.50 

0.50 


97.30 

Azusa 

1330-20-7 

4.40 

2.90 

2.60 

1.70 

0.50 

0.50 


100.00 

Azusa 

127-18-4 

9.61 

4.61 

3.11 

1.30 

0.70 

0.44 

1 

99.55 

Azusa 

56-23-5 

0.36 

0.20 

0.17 

0.15 

0.14 

0.13 

0.115 

99.55 

Azusa 

108-88-3 

16.00 

12.00 

10.91 

8.13 

5.30 

0.10 

0.1 

88.70 

Azusa 

79-01-6 

3.04 

1.20 

0.71 

0.44 

0.23 

0.10 

0.05 

63.80 

Azusa 

67-66-3 

0.24 

0.20 

0.20 

0.20 

0.20 

0.20 

10.5 

0.90 

Pico Rivera 

75-07-0 

5.65 

4.64 

3.53 

2.83 

0.05 

1.58 

0.05 

100.00 

Pico Rivera 

50-00-0 

4.42 

3.72 

2.97 

2.69 

2.40 

1.78 


100.00 


A-10 

















Table A-4. Pollutants Monitored and Corresponding Method Detection 

Level by Study 


Pollutant 

Method Detection 
Level 

ATLANTA 

All pollutants monitored' 

0.15 

BATON ROUGE 

All pollutants monitored 1 

0.1 

BAAQMD 

Benzene 

variable 

Carbon Tetrachloride 

variable 

Chloroform 

variable 

Ethylene Dibromide 

variable 

Ethylene Dichloride 

variable 

Methyl Chloroform 

variable 

Methylene Chloride 

variable 

Perchloroethylene 

variable 

Toluene 

variable 

Trichloroethene 

variable 

Vinyl Chloride 

variable 

CARB 

1,3-Butadiene 

0.04, 0.2 

Acetaldehyde 

0.1,1.0 

Benzene 

0.5 

Carbon tetrachloride 

1 

Chlorobenzene 

0.1,1.0 

Chloroform 

0.02 

Ethyl benzene 

0.6 

Ethylene dibromide 

0.01 

Ethylene dichloride 

0.2 

Formaldehyde 

0.1, 1.0 

m-Dichlorobenzene 

0.1, 0.2 

m-Xylene 

0.6 

Methyl Chloroform 

0.02 

Methylene chloride 

0.2, 1.0 

o-Dichlorobenzene 

0.1 

o-Xylene 

0.1 

p-Dichlorobenzene 

0.1, 0.2 

p-Xylene 

0.1, 0.5 

Perchloroethylene 

NA 

Styrene 

0.1 

Toluene 

NA 

Trichloroethylene 

0.02 

COLUMBUS 

Acrolein - 3 hour 

0.3 

Formaldehyde - 3 hour 

0.2 

All other pollutants' 

NA 


Pollutant 

Method Detection 
Level 

SCAQMD 

1,1,1-trichloroethane 

NA 

1,2-dibromoethane 

variable 

1,2-dichloroethane 

variable 

Benzene 

variable 

Chloroethene 

variable 

Formaldehyde 

variable 

Tetrachloroethene 

NA 

T etrachloromethane 

variable 

Toluene 

variable 

Trichloroethene 

variable 

Trichloromethane 

variable 

SOUTHWEST OHIO 

1,1,1-Trichloroethane 

0.3 

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 

0.2 

1,1,2-Trichloroethane 

0.3 

1,1-Dichloroethane 

0.3 

1,2-Dichloroethane 

NA 

1,3-Butadiene 

2.0 

Benzene 

0.2 

Benzyl chloride 

NA 

Bromoform 

0.2 

Bromomethane 

0.3 

Carbon disulfide 

NA 

Carbon tetrachloride 

0.2 

Chlorobenzene 

0.2 

Chloroethane 

0.5 

Chloroform 

0.3 

Chloromethane 

0.4 

Chloroprene 

2.0 

cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 

0.4 

Cumene 

NA 

Ethyl benzene 

NA 

Hexachlorobutadiene 

NA 

Hexane 

NA 

m/p-Xylene 

0.2 

Methylene chloride 

0.2 

Naphthalene 

NA 

o-Xylene 

0.2 

p-Dichlorobenzene 

0.1 

Styrene 

0.2 

Tetrachloroethene 

0.2 

Toluene 

0.2 

trans-1,3-dichloropropene 

0.7 

Vinyl Chloride 

0.3 


A-ll 



















Table A-4. Pollutants Monitored and Corresponding Method Detection 

Level by Study (cont.) 


Pollutant 

Method Detection 
Level 

Staten Island/New Jersey UATAP 2 (cont.) 

NY State Dept, of Environmental Conservation 


o-Xylene 

0.04 

m/p-Xylene 

0.04 

Styrene 

NA 

T etrachloroethene 

0.04 

T etrachloromethane 

0.06 

Toluene 

0.1 

Tribromomethane 

NA 

Trichloroethene 

0.02 

Trichloromethane 

0.04 

NY State Dept, of Health 


Arsenic* 

30, 2 

Cadmium* 

5.0 

Cobalt* 

5.0 

Copper* 

5.0 

Iron* 

11.0 

Manganese* 

5.0 

Molybdenum* 

24.0 

Nickel* 

5.0 

Vanadium* 

5.0 

Zinc* 

10.0 

College of Staten Island 


1,1,1-Trichloroethane 

0.04, 0.02 

1,1,2-Trichloroethane 

0.04, 0.02 

1,1-Dichloroethane 

0.02, 0.01 

1,2-Dichloroethane 

0.02, 0.01 

1,2-Dichlorobenzene 

0.02, 0.01 

1,3-Dichlorobenzene 

0.02, 0.01 

1,4-Dichlorobenzene 

0.4, 0.2 

Benzene 

0.13, 0.06 

Chlorobenzene 

0.02, 0.1 

Chloromethane 

NA 

Dichloromethane 

NA 

Ethyl benzene 

0.2, 0.1 

Hexane 

0.1, 0.05 

o-Xylene 

0.2, 0.1 

m/p-Xylene 

0.4, 0.2 

Styrene 

0.03, 0.015 

Tetrachloroethene 

0.05, 0.03 

T etrachloromethane 

0.04, 0.02 

Toluene 

0.4, 0.2 

Tribromomethane 

0.02, 0.01 

Trichloroethene 

0.02, 0.01 

Trichloromethane 

0.02, 0.01 


Pollutant 

Method Detection 
Level 

Staten Island/New Jersey UATAP 2 

New Jersey Institute of Technology 


1,1,1 -Trichloroethane 

0.01 

1,1,2-Trichloroethane 

NA 

1,1-Dichloroethane 

NA 

1,2-Dichloroethane 

NA 

1,2-Dichlorobenzene 

NA 

1,3-Dichlorobenzene 

NA 

1,4-Dichlorobenzene 

NA 

Benzene 

0.01 

Chlorobenzene 

NA 

Chloromethane 

0.1 

Dichloromethane 

NA 

Ethyl benzene 

NA 

Hexane 

0.01 

o-Xylene 

0.01 

m/p-Xylene 

0.01 

Styrene 

NA 

Tetrachloroethene 

0.01 

Tetrachloromethane 

0.05, 0.1, 0.01 

Toluene 

0.01 

Tribromomethane 

NA 

Trichloroethene 

0.01 

Trichloromethane 

0.01 

Cadmium* 

2.5 

Chromium, total* 

10 

Copper* 

7.5 

Iron* 

10 

Manganese* 

5 

Mercury* 

0.01 

Nickel* 

7.5 

Zinc* 

3.5 

NY State Dept, of Environmental Conservation 


1,1,1-Trichloroethane 

0.06 

1,1,2-Trichloroethane 

0.04 

1,1-Dichloroethane 

NA 

1,2-Dichloroethane 

0.04 

1,2-Dichlorobenzene 

0.04, 0.02 

1,3-Dichlorobenzene 

0.02 

1,4-Dichlorobenzene 

0.02 

Benzene 

0.2 

Chlorobenzene 

0.02 

Chloromethane 

NA 

Dichloromethane 

0.04 

Ethyl benzene 

0.04 

Hexane 

NA 


A-12 












Table A-4. Pollutants Monitored and Corresponding Method Detection 

Level by Study (cont.) 


- 

Method Detection 



Method Detection 

Pollutant 

Level 


Pollutant 

Level 

TNRCC 


UATMP (cont.) 

1,1,1-Trichloroethane 

0.05 


1,2-Dichloropropane 

0.04 

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 

1 


1,3-Butadiene 

0.10 

1,1,2-Trichloroethane 

0.1 


Acetaldehyde 

0.36 

1,1-Dichloroethane 

0.1 


Acetone 

0.36 

1,1-Dichloroethylene 

0.15 


Acetylene 

1.00 

1,2-Dichloroethane 

0.1 


Acrolein 

0.36 

1,2-Dichloropropane 

0.1 


Arsenic 

NA 

1,3-Butadiene 

0.23 


BAP 

NA 

1,4-Dioxane 

0.88 


Barium 

NA 

2,2,4-Trimethylpentane 

0.1 


Benzene 

0.04 

2,4,4-Trimethyl-1-pentene 

0.17 


Beryllium 

NA 

2,4,4-Trimethyl-2-pentene 

0.09 


Bromochloromethane 

0.003 

2-Butanone 

NA 


Bromodichloromethane 

0.001 

Acetaldehyde 

0.61 


Bromoform 

0.001 

Acetonitrile 

0.75 


Bromomethane 

0.20 

Acrylonitrile 

0.93 


Cadmium 

NA 

Benzene 

0.35 


Carbon Tetrachloride 

0.001 

Bromoform 

1 


Chlorobenzene 

0.02 

Bromomethane 

1 


Chloroethane 

0.10 

Carbon tetrachloride 

0.03 


Chloroform 

0.01 

Chlorobenzene 

0.16 


Chloromethane 

0.20 

Chloroethane 

0.1 


Chloroprene 

0.06 

Chloroform 

0.04 


Chromium 

NA 

Chloromethane 

0.1 


cis-1,3-Dichloropropylene 

0.04 

cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 

1 


Cobalt 

NA 

Cumene 

0.07 


Copper 

NA 

Ethyl benzene 

0.13 


Dibromochloromethane 

0.001 

lodomethane 

1 


Ethyl benzene 

0.02 

m/p-Xylene 

0.19 


Formaldehyde 

0.36 

Methanol 

NA 


Iron 

NA 

Methyl t-butylether 

0.2 


Lead 

NA 

Methylene chloride 

0.07 


m-Dichlorobenzene 

0.02 

M ethy lisobutylketone 

1 


m/p-Xylene 

0.04 

Naphthalene 

NA 


Ethyl benzene 

NA 

o-Dichlorobenzene 

0.27 


Formaldehyde 

0.36 

o-Xylene 

0.1 


Manganese 

NA 

p-Dichlorobenzene 

1 


Methylene chloride 

0.11 

Styrene 

0.09 


Molybdenum 

NA 

T etrachloroethy lene 

0.03 


n-Octane 

0.03 

Toluene 

0.4 


Nickel 

NA 

trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 

0.07 


o-Dichlorobenzene 

0.02 

Trichloroethylene / BCM 

0.02 


p-Dichlorobenzene 

0.09 

Vinyl acetate 

NA 


Propylene 

0.10 

Vinyl bromide 

1 


Tetrachloroethylene 

0.07 

Vinyl chloride 

0.09 


Toluene 

0.02 

UATMP 


trans-1,3-Dichloropropylene 

0.04 

1,1,1-Trichloroethane 

0.001 


Trichloroethylene 

0.004 

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 

0.002 


Vanadium 

NA 

1,1,2-Trichloroethane 

0.02 


Vinyl chloride 

0.20 

1,1-Dichloroethane 

0.04 


Zinc 

NA 

1,2-Dichloroethane 

0.04 




NOTES: All concentrations in ppbv, unless otherwise noted by an **“. These pollutant concentrations are in ng/cubic meter. 


1 For a listing of pollutants monitored, see Table A-1. 

2 Method detection levels correspond to samples taken during second year of UATAP study (Oct. 1988-Sept. 1989). 


A-13 























Table B-1. List of HAPs with Available Cancer and Noncancer Health Effects Information 


© 

e - 

9 © 

C *= 

Z £ 


O © 

= Z 


o 


o 'S ^ 

Ui p 4fc 

Q. O 7 

6 £ 


o g 2 
z z 
6 it 


x z 

2 g 

CO 


UJ 

6 

* 


© UJ 

c d 

o * 


c 

5 

D 

O 

Q. 


UJ 

O 


T5 

< 

s 

© 

© 

© 

c 

o 

n 

O 


co 

z 

o 


I f 


« -S 

>* E 

© © 

f t 

co 

o 

o 

♦ 

UJ 

o 


2* 

5 

X 

o 

o 

© 

CL 

© 

X 

o 

o 

♦ 

UJ 

o 


o 

-3 

© 

2 

o 

tJ 


2 * 

TJ 


5s 3 

© c 

C g 

3 CL 

© o 
co‘ ® 
z © 
O Q 


2* 

TJ 


eg 

O 

UJ 

o 

o 


© 

o> 


© 

Q 


© 

Ui 

« 

Q. 

© 

CL 


-C 

tr 


g co 
© 2 
* O 
if T3 


CL 

© 

X 


CD UJ 
O 


£ 
co 2 
7 X 

o ,2 

5 i 

i § 


>s 


© 

u 

O 

— 

o 

© 

C 

s 

© 

b 

1 

© 

> 

s 

© 

> 

"O 

© 

© 

© 

© 

© 

© 


Z 

o 

X 

Q 

Z 

Q 

co 




CO 

CO 


o 




o 

o 


UJ 




UJ 

UJ 


o 




o 

o 






o 

o 


vn 




cb 

o> 



co 

o 


UJ 

o 

o 


UJ 

T 

UJ 

♦ 

UJ 

. 

UJ 

UJ 

§ 

8 

o 

CO 

8 

o 

o 

lA 



o» 

cb 


o 

o 

♦ 

UJ 

o 

o 


CO 25 CO 

co a x 

- o - 


co 

X 


CO CO 
CO CO 


CO 

UJ 

Q 

o 


CO 

CO 


CO CO 
CO CO 


CO 

X 


CO 

X 


CO 

X 


CO 


UJ QJ CO CO CO 


X Q X 
“ Q 


X X 


« 

a 

k. 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

X 

UJ 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

co 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

co 

CO 

3 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Q 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

< 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

CO 








a 








UJ 

X 







in 

CO 

m 

2 


in 

to 

(O 

m 

to 

fs- 

to 


m 

CO 


m 

to 

in 

in 

to 

CO 

o 

o 

o 

o 


o 

o 

O 

o 

o 

o 

o 


o 

o 


o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

E 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 


UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 


UJ 

UJ 


UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 


o 

o 

o 

o 


o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 


o 

o 


o 

o 

o 

o 

o 


CO 


m 



CO 

CO 

(O 

O' 

CM 

r*s 



o 

CO 


<o 


<o 

CM 

CM 



CM 

*- 

cb 


CM 

a 0 


00 

CM 




in 

*- 



r- 

in 

CM 

■o- 


cm eg 
CD CD CD 


OJ CM 
CD GQ 


CM 

CD 


< Q 


O O 


CM CM 
CO CD 


CD & 


O 


CM CM 

CO co 


Q O 


CM 

m 


o o o 








to 

CO 



o 

to 






o 



CM 


o 






CD 




to 

O’ 

CM 


c 


4t 




4* 

4t 




4k 






4k 



4k 


4k 






4k 




4k 

4k 

4fc 


© 


© 




© 

© 



© 

© 






© 



© 


© 






© 




© 

© 

© 


E 


O 




O 

o 



o 

O 






o 



o 


o 






O 




O 

O 

o 


E 


c 




c 

c 



c 

c 






c 



c 


c 






C 




c 

c 

c 


o 


o 




o 

o 




o 






Q 



o 


Q 






o 




o 

o 

o 


/1 


o 




o 

o 




o 






o 



o 


Q 






o 




o 

o 

o 


w 


u. 




u_ 

u. 



u_ 

u. 






U_ 



u. 


U. 






X 




LL. 

u_ 

U. 


4* 

o 

CO 

m 

O) 


CM 


CO 

CM 

CO 

m 

t» 

CO 

O’ 

CO 

o 

CO 

o 

CM 

o 

CM 

to 

o 

CO 

m 

CO 

in 

to 

m 

co 

CO 


to 

ao 

o 

CO 

o 

CM 

co 

^r 

co 

in 

to 

CO 

CO 

in 

co 

co 

hs 

CD 

o 


m 


o> 

in 

in 

O’ 

m 

O’ 


CO 

o 


O’ 

ao 

o 

in 

I s * 

CM 



o 

CO 

CM 


r^» 

CM 

m 

CO 


m 


CO 

CD 

CO 

o 

o 

o 

o 

O 


CM 

CO 

co 

O’ 

ao 

CD 

o 

o 

co 

to 

CM 

D- 

o 

CO 

o 


o 

O 

to 


CM 

CO 

r>* 

h* 

T— 

T— 

CM 

"M- 


o 

in 

m 

m 

m 

m 

m 

in 

m 

m 

to 

CD 

CO 

o> 

CD 

a> 

h- 

T— 

o 

in 

tD 

o 

o 

m 

m 

m 

m 

to 

to 

to 

to 

h- 


r*s 

rs. 


hs 



fs. 



fs* 



fs. 

fs. 




fs. 

hs 

<o 

CD 

CD 

CD 

CD 

o 


c. 

© 

2 


CL 

< 

CO 

9 

5 § 

f t 

2 < 

© o 


o © 
U. CD 


© 

i 

c. 

I 

o 

! 2 
1 I 


i a 

o 
o 

€ 

C 

fc. 


© ® 

? 13 ~ 

I | £ % I 

f « 1 I J 

£ J> r € € 

lift! 

T T 2 uj. > 


w C 


© © © 

c c _ -p 

© © ® >» 

© © £ £ £ -c 

“ I £ O c ^ o£|oo° 

®Za— -poS-cT? 
2O0D*-‘T32aiO.2 


© 

§ 

c. 


o 

o 

€ 

Q 

© 

•o 

■C 

o 


® c 

£ ® 
® n 


2 £ 
Q 2 


C 

© 

T3 


> 

© 

C 

© 


O — 


* « 
Q O 


- i . It € ^ 

9 0 - E 2 S' 


•o 

! 1 

® C TJ 

c -o ® c 

_ o « 5> 

I I 8 8 | 

o o < < 2 


-O © 

!L 

Z o *o 


© 

c 

© 

>* 

CL 

O 

X 

© 

c 

© 

CL 

O 


CD 

i © | 
? S i 


o i: 
© ® 
9 


O 

€ 

© 

o 


o o o 9 “ £ -6 

^ 6? 6 • 6 €? ! f 

2 ~ € - 9 a c* 6 © 

CD T3 O X T3 2 


C 

© 

T3 

© 


T3 

T3 


© 

s? 

O 

c 

© 


3 m 
.O © 

2 m 

2 « 

5 £ 

© £ 
X CL 

© © 

*- X z 


CM 

cm" 


O 

z ® 

T3 C 


© 


= ® © " 

9 E >* 

-<r X 3 £ 

cm" 6 O UJ 


B-3 






X =1 

§ I 





0 

0 

0 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

0 

0 

0 


q 

CM 

CO 


CM 


O 

O 


(0 

E 

k. 

o 

ci 

(/) 

■*-> 

o 

0) 

3= 

LU 


<0 

<D 

X 

!— 

<D 

O 

c 

(0 

o 


73 

c 

(0 

k. 

0) 

o 

c 

re 

O 

© 

n 

re 

re 

> 

< 


<o 

CL 

< 


© 


I 

CO 

re 

re 


o 

a ° 

(0 A 

c 51 
S Ui 


re 

re 


O 


co 

E 

E 


o 

o 

+ 

UJ 

CO o 

E 9 

- 

E 


E 

© 

US 

0 

© 

ui 

O 

TO 

C 

£ 

O) 


>. 


re 

© 


X 

O 

. 

£ 


© 

b 

a> 

t— 


3 

© 

O 

© 

© 

0 

z 

© 

> 

t5 

2: 

© 

re 

UJ 

-J 

T3 

© 

z 

■a 

d. 


UJ 

5 

8 

0 

© 

re 

E 



© 

© 


c 

© 

0 

>» 

> 

© 

b 

© 

Cl 

0 

2 

G 

c 

if) 


■»r 

CO 




0 

q 




UJ 

UJ 




0 

0 




CM 

0 




CM 

<b 




* 


2> 

■0 


<s re 

2 5 

S | 

re a> 
Z CL 


a> re 
c c 

CD O 

2 * ** 
<D m 

Q -i 


re re 
Z Z 


>* 2 

: © 
§ « 
8 ® 
g uj 

& d 
— ® 

© > 
> © 
_J Q 


© 


o 

re 

9 - -a 


— <D _ 

a» t x 
o-^o 

P 75* P 


3 C 
© © 
Z X 


O CO CM 

O O O 

(i w u 

go § 

^ CO CO 


— © 
-C C 
CD © 

® o 

5 Q 

® •£ 

£ a 

^ £ 

1 o 

® 2 

6 = 

= o 


UJ 

O 

o 

a> 


o 

a 

© 


re 

Z 


C/D 

Z 

o 

■a 

c 

^ re 
o. ©‘ 
9 T 5 
tr © 

© 7: 

a. uj 

>V 

X CL 

• © 

is ® 
© > 
> © 
□ a 

CO 

o 

UJ 

o 

o 


© 

> 


© 

73 

< 

© 

c 

;o 

* 

c’ 

re 

X 


© 

Z 


o 

€ 

£ 

o 

re 


o 

o 

c 

o 

3 

< 


£ S' c 

© © re 
XXX 

CO 

o 

UJ 

o 

m 


*- 

■M- 

in 

CO 

CO 



T- 

v- 

CO 

CO 


o- 


q 

q 

q 

q 

q 

q 

q 

q 

q 

q 

q 

q 

q 

0 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

III 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

O 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

q 

q 

q 

q 

0 

q 

0 

O 

0 

0 

q 

q 

0 

06 

CM 

CM 


CM 

CM 


CM 

CM 

h»‘ 

CO 

in 


CO 


© 

x 9 

2 g 

X 


UJ © 

9 5 

^ 5 


C/D 

X 


C/D 

X 


® CO 

< x 

UJ — 
X 


X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

UJ 

X 

UJ 

O Q 

Q U_ 

X 

X 

X 

X 

G 

G 

Q 

G 

< UJ 




” 

Q 

G 

Q 

G 

X H 


C/D CO CO C/p 
X X X X 


CO 

X 


CO CO 

X X 


CO 

X 


X 

UJ 

G 

G 


X 

UJ 

o 

G 


X 

UJ 

Q 

a 


X 

D 


__ L 

■M* 

•V 

in 

in 


CO 


CO 

m 

CO 

CO 

q 

q 

q 

q 

9 

q 

q 

q 

q 

q 

E 

UJ 

UJ 

uj 

uj 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

Q) 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

3 

CM 

ao 

<0 

ao 

q 


ao 

q 

CM 

CM 


CM 

CM 

CM 

<b 


CO 

in 


CO 

CM 


Q 

Q 

< 

X 


*- CM 

o o 
♦ 

UJ 
o 


UJ 

o 


CM 

CD 


CM CM 

GO CD 


CM n M <M 

CD u U q) 


Q Q 


S ° 


CM 

x 


CM 

X 


CM 

X 


CM 

X 


UJ 

o 

CO 

CO 


UJ 

o 

ao 


s Q ° 


0 ) 

■*r 

O 

O’ 









0 



O 


CO 



r«- 





CO 




^. 



CM 

CO 


m 


c 


** 

* 










% 








* 



% 




** 




Tt 

% 


3 t 


© 

c 

© 

© 

© 









© 

© 


© 


© 



© 

© 



© 

© 



© 

© 



© 

© 


© 


c 

O 

O 

0 









O 

O 


Q 


0 



O 

0 



0 

O 



0 

O 




O 


O 


E 

C 

C 

c 









C 

c 


c 


c 



C 

c 



c 

C 



c 

c 



C 

c 


C 


0 

O 

O 

0 









O 

0 


0 


0 



O 

0 



0 

O 



0 

0 




0 


O 


0 

O 

O 

0 









O 

0 


Q 


0 



O 

0 



0 

O 



0 

0 



O 

0 


O 



X 

X 

LL 









u. 

X 


X 


LL 



X 

LL 



X 

u_ 



LL 

LL 



LL 

LL 


LL 


« 

in 


co 

r^» 

■re* 

0 

CO 


CM 




CO 

<0 


CO 




CO 


ao 


CM 



CM 

r^. 

CO 

O’ 

CO 

05 


in 

CO 

0 

X 

CM 

■«r 

CM 

CO 

co 

05 

CM 

in 

CO 

CO 

m 

0 

ao 

ao 

0 


CO 

M- 

CM 

ao 

r— 

05 

CO 

CO 


05 

0 

0 

CO 

O’ 



CM 

<0 

r^ 

CM 

< 

■O' 


o- 


05 

05 

O 

0 

O 

T— 

0 

▼— 

co 

co 

05 

m 

CM 


CO 

co 

05 

05 


O 

ao 


co 

CM 

CO 

0 

0 

ao 

05 

05 

05 

O 

t \ 

O 

0 

co 

co 

co 

CO 




h- 

ao 

CO 

ao 

co 

ao 

0 


ao 

O 

CO 

CO 

CO 


CO 

O 

f>» 

CO 

O 

CO 

O’ 

<0 

CO 

05 

05 

05 

O 

u 

O 

0 

0 

0 

0 

O 

O 

0 

0 

O 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

T— 


▼— 

CM 

CM 

CM 

CM 

CM 

CO 

O' 

X 

05 

CO 

CO 

CO 

0 

co 

CO 

CO 

CO 

O 



*■* 














T“ 


v— 

v 


▼- 

t— 



m 

m 

m 

CO 

CO 

CO 


CM 

O 

O’ 

0 

O’ 































*“ 

■*“ 

CO 

r>- 


h- 

c** 


© 

_ >» 
3 ~ 
© 


Ul 


© 

T 3 


© 

c 

re 


c 

re 


o 

CL 


© ~ 

JO © 

5 2 g 

■g © f o 

? >. § 15 

® N >, Q T 3 

£ g x 4 ci 

XX Q. *-* 


o ±= 
O W 
© 

O c 
« 2 


© 

c _ 

^ © 2 o ^ 

© ■© is o © 

? 5 » S « u 

o x q -o ^ 

.Q CO £ 

*0 < 


© 

c 

o 

X 

© 

X 

© 

c 

o 

I 

© & 
© 7 ? 3 

= 22 


1- £ 


S — o O 

^ ? Z >•>»£: x 3 o X 9 

; CM O & C ®.qS © 2 

< »-* B < > 2 E H O X 0. 


c 

m © 
© .0 

5 0 

® o 


o 

CD 

>* 

a 

X 


c 
© 

" o 


© 

c 

© 

N 

C 

© 

-O 

o 


re 

a. 

o 


5|-° 
S § 


© 
TO 

o ”2 

5 * 

c 
o 


© © 
s I 
S & 

a. Q ' 


© 

c 

© 

>» 

il 

£ £ 
® ^ 
P $ 


CM 2 


X - X O H ^ 


o I i 

O ,® 2 


s. 

>. ® 

c 2 

1 « 

•= O s s 

^ -5 f x 

•6 c o 

E 


® 

TJ 

O 


ffl cm' O c 
O cm" Z > 


© 

c. 


o 

TD 

CL 


C 

© 

n 

T 3 

O 


f € o 

^ re Q 

m ^ 8 

© V 


>> ®. 
S 

© co* 
2 CM* 


■O 

re 

© 


© 

c ^ 

« ? — 

cn w © 

c 2 * 


re © 
2 2 


Z < 


B-4 




Table B-1. List of HAPs with Available Cancer and Noncancer Health Effects Information (cont.) 


cc ^ 

o i 


© 

o 

« ® 


UJ 


c 
o 

Z £ 

* 2 

o ® 

S x 

o 


o 2 
uj 4 
o. a> 
E 


y 1 

E 


9 

c 2 W M 

2 g X g: 

(/) 


UJ © 

o | 2 2 

o £ E 

^ c/> 


o 


8 - 

© 

GC 


O 

O 


UJ 

O 

r^. 


CO 

CO 

a 

a 

Q 

Q 

Q 

a 

Q 

O 

Q 

CO 

UL 

CL¬ 

U. 

u. 

u_ 

u. 

li¬ 

u. 

u. 

a: 

GC 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

eu 

UJ 

UJ 

GC 


“ 

»- 

H 

H 


h* 

1- 



»- 



CO CO CO 

d a: d 


CO 

a: 




CO 

CO 

o 

CNJ 

T— ' 

CNJ 

o 

T— 

o 


o 

r- 

o 


■«r 


co 

o 

O 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

a: 

2 

E 

§ 

3, 

UJ 

o 

O 

UJ 

O 

CD 

UJ 

o 

cq 

UJ 

o 

CNJ 

UJ 

o 

CO 

UJ 

o 

CO 

♦ 

UJ 

o 

CO 

+ 

UJ 

lO 

CO 

•f 

UJ 

o 

CO 

•» 

UJ 

IO 

CO 

•f 

UJ 

m 

CO 

UJ 

o 

CO 

♦ 

UJ 

o 

CO 

UJ 

o 

•^r 

UJ 

o 

o 



CNJ 

** 

't 


CO 

CO 

CO 


CO 



CO 

CO 

CNJ 



© UJ 

c d 

3 i 


CNJ «- 
CO CD 


CNJ 

CO 





o 

CO 

CO 

00 




CNJ 

CNI 

CNJ 

CNJ 

CNJ 

CNJ 

CNJ 

CNJ 

CNJ 



CO 





















c 



St 



St 




St 

St 

St 

St 

St 

St 

St 

St 

St 



St 

© 



© 

© 

© 

© 




© 

© 

© 

© 

© 

© 

© 

© 

© 



© 

E 



O 

o 

o 

O 




o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

O 

o 



O 

E 



c 


6 

fr 




c 

c 

c 

c 

c 

c 

c 

c 

c 



c 

o 



o 

o 

o 

o 




o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 



o 

a 



o 

o 

o 

o 




o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 



o 




LL 

U- 

u. 

u_ 




u_ 

u. 

IL 

u. 

LL 

u_ 

u_ 

u. 

U- 



u_ 

» 


05 


o 

CNJ 

m 

CNJ 

CO 

05 

05 

o 

CO 

O' 

05 


CO 

O' 

05 

< 

< 

< 

CO 


CO 

CO 

O' 

05 

o 

CNJ 

05 

05 

CO 

CNJ 

CO 

CO 

T— 

V- 


05 

CO 

z 

Z 

z 


■'T 


O' 


O' 

m 


CO 

CNJ 

O’ 

o 

CNJ 

r- 

CO 

co 

o 

CO 

CNJ 





O 

O 

o 

CO 

CNJ 

CNJ 

m 

CO 

o 

CNJ 

V— 


9 — 


r^» 


CNJ 

ao 




o 



O' 

CNJ 

ao 

CO 

CO 

CO 

O' 

CNJ 

o 

CNJ 

CNI 

o 

▼— 


CO 

O' 







O’ 


r^* 


o 

O' 

in 

ao 

o 

CNJ 

CO 

CNJ 



in 

CO 





r>- 

r-. 



h- 

h- 

CNJ 

CO 

CO 

m 

05 

05 

o 



r^ 

r^- 

o 













**• 

CO 

CO 

CO 

o 

m 

m 

m 

CO 






■o 

c 

3 

O 


3 

Q 




& 





2 

>« 


Q 


Q 

o 


o 

UL 

Q 

u. 

u. ^ 



o 

O 


«5 

2 



1 

JO 

c 

o 

2 

> 

£ 

Q 

O 

CL 

U. 

Q 

O 

Q 

O 

X 

Q 

O 

© 

u. 

Q 

o 

a. 

<i 

CL 

a 

Q ® © 

SJ £ 2 

c 

« 

E 

3 

E 

3 


o 

A 

E 

3 

© 

c 

3 

CO 

© 

o 

3 

Z 

I 

aq 

o 

cb 

I 

<£> 

Q. 

cb 

H 

ob 

cb 

cb 

N 

i 

ao 

^ i 6 
ao _ — 

s 

o 

© 

T3 

© 

fl 

A 

O 

S’ 

o 

A 

C 

© 

© 

o 

A 

© 

© 

* 

c 

o 

£ 

CO* 

N 

CO 

CO* 

N-* 

CO* 

N 

CO* 

O'* 

CO* 

co* 

CNJ 

co* 

- - © © 

«: s « 

a. 

CD 

o 

O 

CL 

c n 

o 

z 

z 

O 

CNJ* 

CNJ* 

CNJ* 

CNJ* 

CNJ* 

CNJ* 

*“ 

CNJ* 

CNJ Z Z 


E 

o 


O « O 

at ® 9 

— O “ 

>» 

I s 


$ 
05 
_ C 
O 2 

^ c 
ffl T3 

O 5 

1 « 

© m 


05 E 


© 

© 


-o -r- 

© < 
H Q. 
iu 

© 
to 
>. 
CO 


£ c 


a a> 

3 g 

o — 

© © 
Q. •- 


jo UJ m 

.c _ c 


T3 — C 

C g o 

C o 8 

“ s § 

8 £ | 

i * £ 

— 2 § 

o a — 

© a> ® 

CL © <0 

H C f 


3 

O 

Q 

o 

T5 

© 


8 

*E 

UJ 


© 

o 


« c 


c 

o 

O 


3 * 

E © 


o r 

05 « 

3 £ 

O H 


UJ « II 
Z E CT 


s | 

2- E 
2 3 

£ o 

£ o 

n “ 
a 

£ UJ 

uj a 
i- a 


I s 

I < 

© (E 
> — 
UJ ^ 

« C 

E = 

-E © 
© © 
£ c 

» n 
O 
UJ 

Q_ d 


GC 

D 


a: 

c 

D 

© 

6 

n 

GC 

D 

O 


© 

© © 
© 10 
•Q « 


E c 

5 « 

^ c 

T3 © 

© 5 
I =5 

~ 05 

c c 
o o 

T3 T3 

8 8 
© © 
n a 

05 05 

c c 

I ! 


C/5 — — 


c c 
© © 
05 05 

O O 

c c 
O t3 


Q 

z 

UJ 

O 

UJ 


UJ 

o 


£ 8 8 £ 


© 

05 

O 

c 

TJ 

© 

O 

n 

< 


>» > 
a n 
© © 
A A 
O O 


5 

c 

© 

05 

o 

c 

« 2 
I 8 

i s 

A £ 
O 3 


© © 
O ® 

c ® 
t3 JO 

8 £ 
>, 8 
B ® 

05 O 


*- CNJ 
GO GO 


n n 
O Q 


M 

z 

u_ 


B-5 


HADD = Health Assessment Document lor Dioxin (EPA) of pollutant per L of water, at a rate of 2.0 L per day for 70 years. 

HEAST = Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables 
HEA * Health Effects Assessment (EPA) 

EHP = Environmental Health Perspectives Journal 



Table B-1. List of HAPs with Available Cancer and Noncancer Health Effects Information (cont.) 


i 


^ 3 C C 

a ° ^ a 

f !«i 

> Jr $3 <0 
c ® <o 

8 I s . 
* I £ £ 

2 * O 3 

3 r ° 2 

S g.3 

© © v-i 

' ® a 


© w 

* i 

ffl 5 ^ 


i 


_ ■ s 

« c 
© « 

X 

3 

ill 

® <0 M 

H I 

< TJ 
0- C 

QJ © 

© c 

£ O © 

s P 


© 

ft 

c 

o 


UJ 


>* 

ii; 

Q. — — 
O © 

T> 3 

© cr 
»_ © 

O « 

11 
I i 
> © 

s g 

® -a -o 

C 


CD 

C 


■g « 1 

I m ® 

e K *. 

s £ 

© 

T3 
© 

© 

T3 9* 
< © 
m ^ c 

S « £ 

§!! 
«a o c 

c a o 
2-3 
o 8 

• (0 w _ 

” ® *3 « 

© '■ ■ 


o 
u_ 

© 
© 0- 
s < 


© 

£ 

o 

■ 

1 


CL 

< 

CO 

<o 


c 

3 

2 -a 
a> 


vn 

I 


© 
© 
& 

5 S 

O T3 

> 2 

• g 


- t S- 

c c « 2 £ 

Q D T- 

° o o 55 

© “ 


© 

© © 


■a 

« ® 
— X 
© 

to 
3 


<2 « 

m g 

a> 6 


> X r- 00 

fill 


1 8 « 
« 
£ 

© £ 
c 


© 

© 

CL 

c 

© 

© 


© © 
I S 

5 2 o 


o TJ 

4 


«> s 
_ -a a 

O ^>> <j> 

1 ® a. 

2 § g 

£ I * 

CO © 
o © 

0- d 

T3 Z 

c ° 3 


<D 

— <D 

2 a: w 

I “ - 


S g 

§ 3 

— O 

_© T3 
© © 


^ « c E 

! !s| 

TX (D t 


© 

g 2 
2 -o 
a c 
© © 
O c 


© © 
o 


i • 
© 




o. © 

CD 0 

3 I 8 

O to © 

5 ® £ 

:-5 


O « 

« 5 
1 «, 


© o _ 

Hi 
£: © 
- ® 
o (0 

* I s 

«o © 

! I s 
8 1 8 
* I 8 § 

O © -o 
^ O £ c 
— ^ « 
® 2 2 © 

s<=!! 

>* 

© 

I 1 

_ D O 

IIS 


© 

tr 


© 

o 


o 

o 


X — 

2 2©- 
— © tr a — 

!ir JS? 

(E 2 o | » 

% £ © CD 


© © 
73 © 
O -c 

8 ® 
© £ 
© o 

s c 
c o 
« H 


CL 

3 

O 

t 

o 

* 

O 

£ 

< 

a. 

UJ 

© 


T5 

© 


© 

© 

•Q 


© 

> 

« 

.C 

© 

© 

.o 

© 


co 

< 

UJ 

X 

c 

o 

*0 


O 

£ 

© 


CO 

< 

UJ 

X 

< 

CL 

UJ 

CO 

D 

CM 

05 

05 


© 

2 

© 

- >> 
c c 

— o 

c « 

§ n 

O 

© 

© c 
O « 

« ? 
® C 
£ © 
c 2 
° « 
•o 

8 -2 
© TH 
JD Q 
© "O 

© © 
© C 

c — 
© © 
I © 
O g 

T3 ^ 
C © 
© > 

© © 
■Q ■ 

— © 

3 ^ 


1 

3 T3 


O 

UJ 

CL 

© 

CM 


CO 

ac 

c 

o 

T3 

C 

3 

O 


6 

£ 

$ 


O 

O 

T3 

© 

© 


CO 

O 

< 

< 

2 

■o 

« 

T3 

C 

« 

CO 

© 

3 

o 


z 

© 


c 

o 


o 

O 

TD 

© 

© 


o 

UJ 

0. 

O 

c 

o 


T3 
© 


© 

© 

© 

© 

CO 

E 

3 

— . 

05 

E 

CO 

o 

o 


« 

c 

© 

>S 

X 

o 


E 

JD 

C 

© 


CO 

GC 

c 

o 

TD 

8 

« 

CL 

C 

© 

© 

n 


o ^ 

o 3 

°- E 

I 2 

I- o 

CO P 

% o 


© 

o 

O 

UJ 

0. 

© 


< 

CL 

UJ 


■C 

© 


© 

© 


8 

© 

E 


g 

© 

© 

o 

O 

£ 

© 

(E 

m 


© 

XD 

© 

« 

$ 

© 

« 

g 


6 

C 

© 

13 

co 

T5 

© 


c 

© 

3 

or 

o 

Z 


8 

T3 

© 

O 


© 

© 

© 

© 

CO 

© 

T3 

>s 

-C 

© 

© 


< 

O 

o 

£ 


c 

o 

T3 


© 

T3 

C. 

© 

2 

© 

c 

o 

CL 

o 

£ 

o 

o 

UJ 

0- 

© 

|E 


© 

© 

(0 


© 

z 

t5 

© 

8 - 

© 

E 

3 

O) 

E 

CO 

TO 

c 

© 


o 

o 

to 

a 

< 

< 


© 

o 

0 

© 

> 

© 


© 

I 

< 

© 


© 

n 

© 

© 

o 

c 

© 

£ 

© 

2 


© 

c 

-C 

o 

-C 

O 

5 

© 

o 

UJ 

a. 

© 

(E 

00 


T3 

© 


< 

Q_ 

UJ 

© 

© 

T3 

C 

© 


o 

$ 

o 

£ 

© 


3 

O 


O 

£ 

© 


© 

n 


O 

UJ 

CL 

© 


TO 

© 

© 

T3 

Vi 

c 

o 

o 

© 

© 

T3 


© 

© 

CL 

C 

© 

© 

n 


< 

CL 

UJ 

o 

c 

© 


o 

Tp 
CL 

6 

M 

C 

© 

£ 

T3 

O 

O 

3 


co' 


X 

3 


co 


O 

II 

£g 
® 2 
<0 = 
> 


3 

© 

© 

CT g 
© ® 

CO 

© 

O c 

* 

33 

© 

> 

X >< 
O O 
— "O 

X 

0 

8 

© 

O) __ 

£ 0 

>* to 

T3 

JZ 

CL C 

C 

© 

1- 

CL O 
© — 


>. C 

S O 

§ ~ 

© 


CO* 

gc 

? 

0 

T3 

© 

d 

<0 

$ -o 

a ^ 
© 

E 

O 

© 

© < 

0 

T3 

© 

© 

E 

O 

T3 

© 

05 x 
C TO 

8 § 

C 

© 

2 

0 

© 

0 

c 

0 

8 

3 

"D 

C 

© 

c: 

© 

1 & 
O ^ 

B ® 
© 

8 ^ 

© 

> 

8 

© 

© 


g| 


© 

© 

© 

CO 


n 

8 


2 

O 

UJ 


UJ 

o 


2 

O 

CL 

O 

© 

i 


c 

© 

c 

to - 

to 


co 

UJ © 

© 

© 

© 

O 

UJ 

— © 

X co 

X 

X 

X 

3 

2 

© 

© 

© ^ 

© 

© 

CO 

jC 

H 

£ Q 
^ Q 

JC 

K 

0 


CM (J 

co 


B-6 


#14 Weight of Evidence Is currently under review. See reference 9 for discussion of potential cardnogenldty. 




APPENDIX C 


SITE-SPECIFIC CANCER RISK ESTIMATES 


C-l 


Figure C2-1. DeKalb Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant 



in 

in 

w 

9 

9 

9 

til 

Ul 

UJ 

o 

o 

o 

o 

© 

o 

CO 

<6 



MSu jaoueo 3uij)3|!| |enp;A!pu| 


C-2 


Af.lanf.a Sf.nHv 




















































Figure C2-2. Ft. McPh. Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant 



r< ’ 








B 

* *h >, 


HH 




in 

in 

in 

in 

9 

9 

9 

9 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

o 

o 

o 

o 

§ 

§ 

ob 

<b 

** 

oi 


>fsu jaoueo aunieju |enp;Ajpu| 



C-3 








































Figure C2-3. Georgia Tech Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant 



C-4 


Atlanta Studv 














































Figure C2-4. M. L. King Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant 



X3 

3 

4 -> 

CO 


03 

c 

03 


< 


C-5 






















































Figure C2-5. Mars Hill Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant 



in 

in 

in 

m 

m 

in 

m 

in 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

til 

ui 

ui 

Ui 

UJ 

Ui 

Ui 

Ui 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o> 

00 

1^ 

<0 

in 

rr 

CO 

cvi 


ysu j0oubo auiuaji.i |enp;A;pu| 


C-6 


Acetaldehyde Formaldehyde Benzene 

Pollutant 
























































































































Figure C2-6. Tucker Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant 



C-7 















































Figure C4-1. Antioch Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant 



spiuiojqjQ au3|Aqig 


apuomojQ auaiAqjg 


13 


LUJOiOJOiqo 


auaqiaojomoui 


3U3|Aipaojo|qoi3d 


apjjomo 3U3|Aq)3^ 


in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

m 

<o 

o 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

UJ 

LU 

Ui 

Hi 

Ui 

Ui 

Ui 

Ui 

o 

O 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

q 

in 

o 

in 

o 

in 

o 

o 


CO 

ri 

04 

04 

T™ 

7— 

in 


>|Sjj jqoudo euuue)H |DnpiAjpu| 


3U3ZU3Q 


3P|jomo |Auja 


ap|JO|l|OEJJ31 UOqJBQ 


C-8 


BAAQMD Study 


















































































Figure C4-2. Concord Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant 



spjiuojqiG 9ua|Aqi3 


apuomoejjai uoqjeQ 


Uijojojoiqo 


apuoiqotQ aua|Aq )3 


aua|Aqiaojo|qajad 


auaqiaojoiqoiii 


apuomo auajAipa^ 


V) 

in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

ID 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

LU 

Ul 

Ui 

Ui 

III 

111 

ID 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

O 

in 

o 

in 

o 

in 

o 

O 

CO 

CO 

oi 

04 



in 


>isu jeouoo eoiuejn |Dnp|A!pu| 


C-9 


BAAQMD Study 































































Figure C4-3. Fort Cronkhite Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant 



in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

CO 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

HI 

Ui 

UJ 

Ui 

HI 

UJ 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

in 

o 

in 

o 

o 

CO 

<N 

CN 

T- 

i— 

in 


>isu jqoudo euu!4©jH iDnpjAjpui 


apuomo jAuia 


apjtuojqja 3U9|Aqi3 


apuo|qoej}3i uoqjco 


3U3ZU3Q 


3puo|qo!a 3U3|Aqig 


tujojoJoiqo 


3U3q)30J0|M3jJl 


spuoiqo 3U3|Aq}3W 


3U3|Aqj30J0|q0J3d 


C-10 


BAAQMD Study 


























































Figure C4-4. Fremont Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant 



apuoiqo |AujA 


auazuag 


apjiuojqjQ 9U0|Agi3 


apuomoejjai uoqjeo 


epuoiqoja 3U3|Aqi3 


ujjojojomo 


auaqjaojoiqaui 


aua|Aq;aojo|qojad 


apjiomo auaiAqja^ 


10 

lO 

to 

»n 

in 

in 

in 

to 

<o 

o 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

o 

+ 

HI 

ui 

i&i 

Hi 

UI 

Ui 

UI 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

to 

o 

to 

o 

in 

o 

in 

o 

o 

o 



CO 

ci 

oi 

oi 

** 


to 

o 


>|Sjj jeouDO euiue/n lonpjAjpui 


>», 

T3 

3 

4-9 

m 

Q 

I 

3 

PQ 


C-ll 



























































Figure C4-5. Livermore Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant 




in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

ID 

at 

HI 

at 

at 

UJ 

ID 

at 

O 

0 

0 

0 

0 

O 

O 

0 

q 

in 

0 

in 

0 

in 

q 

0 


CO 

CO 

c\i 

c\i 


T- 

in 


>|Sjj jeouDD eujuejji |DnpiA|pu| 


auazuag 


apuomo |Au|a 


apiujojqia au3|Aq)3 


apuomoeJiai uoqjeo 


apuoiqoi.a 3U3|Aqj3 3 


ujjojojoimo 


euaqjaojoiqoiii 


au3|Aqiaoj0|i|0J9d 


apuomo 9U3|Aq}3^ 


C-12 


BAAQMD Study 














































































Figure C4-6. Martinez Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant 



auaqjaojomoui 


apuoino aueiAqjafl 


in 

in 


in 

in 

in 

in 

9 

9 


9 

9 

9 

9 

OI 

tu 


uj 

tu 

Ul 

UJ 

o 

o 


o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 


o 

o 

o 

o 

<6 

in 


n 

cj 

csi 

T— 


o 

o 

+ 

m 

o 

o 

o 



>jsu jeouoo eumjejn |Dnp;A!pu| 


C -13 


BAAQMD Study 























































Figure C4-7. Mountain View Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant 







_ 


■ $£98 


^Sllll 


: -^^r 


apiiuojqiQ aua|Aqj3 


apuoiqoBJjai uoqjeo 


unojojomo 


apuombjQ aua|Aqj3 


in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

UJ 

ill 

in 

UJ 

UJ 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

in 


c*i 

oi 

T— 


>jsu jeouoo euu!|0Mi |Dnp!Ajpu| 


auaqiaoioiqoui 


ap|jomo iAuia 


apuomo aua|Aqja^ 


auaiAipaoJombjad 


auazuag 


C-14 


BAAQMD Study 
















































Figure C4-8. Napa Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant 




apuomo |Auia 


apiujojqia 9u3|Ai(J3 


apijonjoauai uoqjeo 


c 

o 

apuoiqoia auaiAqig 3 

O 

a. 


uiJO)OJO|qo 


auaiAqiaojoigojad 


auaqiaojoiqoui 


apjjomo aua|Aqiaw 


to 

lO 

in 

in 

in 

in 

m 

in 

in 

CO 

o 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

+ 

HI 

QJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

Ul 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

in 

q 

in 

o 

in 

o 

in 

o 

o 

o 

in 



CO 

c*j 

c\i 

oi 

r- 

T“ 

in 

o 


)jsjj jeouDO euuueji.1 |Dnp|A!pu| 



I 

3 

CQ 
































































Figure C4-9. Oakland Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant 


3U3ZU30 




IT) 

in 

m 

in 

in 

in 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

Ui 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UI 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

in 

o 

in 

o 

o 

ci 

oi 

ni 


T— 

in 


>fs;j jqoudo euiijejn |Dnp|Aipu| 


dpuomo |Auia 


apiujojqiQ 3U3 |Aiu3 


apuoiqoBJjai uoqjBQ 


apjjoiqoiQ aua|Aqi3 


iujojojoimo 


aua|Aq;aojO|qojad 


auaqjaojoiqoui 


apuomo auaiAqiaw 


C-16 


BAAQMD Study 





























































Figure C4-10. Pittsburg Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant 



to 

in 

in 

in 

9 

9 

9 

9 

LU 

Ul 

111 

LU 

o 

o 

o 

O 

in 

o 

tn 

O 

CO 

cn 

oi 

04 


apjjomoia 3U3|Aqig 


lujojojomo 


3U3L|l30J0|l|3jJJ_ 


apuomo 3U3|Aqi3yv 


3U3|Al|}30JO|l|OJ3(j 


>jsjj J0OUDO eiuuejH pnpjAipui 


3P!Ui0jq;a 3U3|Aqig 


apuoiqoeJiai uoqjBQ 


C-17 


BAAQMD Study 




























































Figure C4-11. Redwood City Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant 




auazuag 


apuomo iAuia 


apiuiojqia auaiAgig 


apuomoejiai uoqjeo 


ujjojojomo • 


apuoiqoiQ auajAqig 


apuoiqo aua|Atflay\| 


auaqjaojoiqoui 


auajAqiaojomojad 


Lf) 

in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

O 

• 

9 

9 

9 

9 

o 

* 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

Ul 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

d 

in 

rr 

CO 

04 

r- 


>|s;j J0OUDO eujuejn |Dnp;A;pu| 


o 

UJ 

o 

o 

d 







C-18 


BAAQMD Study 























































Figure C4-12. Richmond/7th St. Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant 



IO 

in 

to 

in 

in 

in 

CD 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

*? 

? 

HI 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

HI 

UJ 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

O 

in 

o 

in 

o 

in 

o 

o 

ci 

d 

c\i 

<N 

*“ 

T" 

CO 


>|s;j jeouDO euuueju |Dnp!Ajpu| 


o 

9 

UJ 

o 

o 

o 


auamaojo|ip|Ji 


aua|Aqjaojomojad 



C-19 


BAAQMD Study 





























































Figure C4-13. Richmond/13th St. Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant 


auazuag 




gpuoino |Au|a 


apiiuojqjQ aua|Aq)g 


apuomoBJiai uoqjeo 


apuoiqoiQ aua|Aqig 


auaq^aojoiqoui 


apuomo auaiAipaw 


uijojojoiqo 


aua|Aqjaojo|qojad 


in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

m 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

LU 

LLI 

HI 

LU 

tu 

HI 

Ul 

HI 

o 

O 

o 

o 

o 

O 

o 

O 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

O 

O) 

00 

1^ 

to 

in 

If 

ci 

ni 


>jsi.j jeouDO euMjejn |Dnp!A|pu| 




C-20 


BAAQMD Study 







































































Figure C4-14. San Francisco Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant 






auazuag 


apuomo iAuia 


apjuiOjqiQ auaiAqjg 


ap!JO|t|OEJjai uoqjeo 


apijoitpia auaiAqig 


apuomo aua|Aqiaw 


lujojojoiqo 


auaiAipaojoiqajad 


auaiAqiaojoiqoui 


9 

ai 

o 

o 

in 


rr 

9 

Hi 

o 

in 

tj- 


9 

UJ 

o 

o 


*3* 

<3 

if 

9 

9 

9 

UJ 

Ul 

UJ 

o 

o 

o 

55 

o 

in 

CO 

CO 

cvi 


9 

LU 

O 

O 

oi 


9 

UJ 

o 

in 


rf 

9 

UJ 

o 

o 


in 

9 

UJ 

o 

o 

in 


o 

UJ 

o 

o 

o 


)jSjJ J90UD0 0UJU0MI |Dnp!A|pU| 



C-21 


BAAQMD Study 








































Figure C4-15. San Jose - 4th St. Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant 



PiPPH 


■.•. / • 


■ 

•_- S s 




. v 


auazuag 


apijomo |Au|a 


apjiuojqia auaiAqjg 


apuomoejiai uoqjeo 


apuoiqoja 3U3|Aqi3 


uiJO)OJO|qo 


3puomo 3U3|Aqi3^ 


3U3|Aip30J0|q3J3d 


3U3|Aqi30J0|q3ui 


in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

o 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

<? 

LU 

LU 

Ul 

ui 

Ui 

Hi 

LU 

til 

HI 

o 

O 

o 

o 

o 

o 

O 

o 

0 

o 

in 

o 

in 

o 

in 

o 

o 

o 


CO 

CO 

c\i 

cvi 

T- 


in 

d 


){su jooudo euj!40|!i |DnpiAjpu| 


C-22 


BAAQMD Study 







































































Figure C4-16. San Jose - WSC Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant 



8U3|AlU30J0|ipuj. 



- v 


apijomo auajAgjaw 


auaiAinaoJOigojad 



& 


§ 

.jf 

<• 


to 

9 

to 

9 

in 

9 

in 

9 

in 

• 9 

in 

9 

o 

UJ 

111 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

m 

UJ 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

to 

11$ 


ci 

oi 


o 


>fs|j jeouDO ewiiejn pnpiAipui 


C-23 


BAAQMD Study 



























































Figure C4-17. San Leandro/Fairmont Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant 



-v,; w( «wi.\ <-<' 

■ 




spuomoiQ au3|Aiu3 


api.jomo aua|Aifla^ 


3U3|Al|}3OJO|l|0J3d 


3U3L|)3OJO|l|0jJJ, 


in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

to 

o 

9 

9 

9 

. 9 

9 

9 

9 


UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

in 

o 

in 

o 

in 

o 

o 

o 

cn 

ri 

cvi 

oi 



in 

o 


>fsu jeouDO eujue)!| lonpiAipui 


C-24 


BAAQMD Study 





























































Figure C4-18. San Leandro/Thornton Ave. Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant 




in 

LO 

in 

in 

in 

in 

o 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

o 

+ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

LU 

UJ 

UJ 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

© 

o 

to 

U) 


«o 

oi 

r— 

o 


>jsjj jeouoo euu!4ej!i |Dnp!A|pu| 


auazuag 


apuomo |Au|a 


apjuiojqia 3U3|Ai|i3 


3PU0|1|0BJ131 uoqjBQ 


c 

O 

apuoiqoia 3U3|Aq;3 3 

O 

a. 


tujojojoiqo 


3 U 3 q) 30 i 0 |q 3 IJi 


3P!J0|M0 3U3|Aqj3^ 


3U3|Aq;3OJ0|q3J3d 


C-25 


BAAQMD Study 















































Figure C4-19. San Rafael Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant 



in 

in 

in 

in 

m 

in 

in 

in 

CO 

o 

o 

1 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

«? 

LU 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

Ul 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

o 

O 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

O 

o 

o 

in 

o 

in 

o 

in 

o 

in 

O 

o 

o 



CO 

CO 

oi 

oi 

T— 

T* 

in 

o 


>ts;j J0OUDO auu!|0)!i |Dnp;Aipu| 


c 

o 

o 

Q_ 


spuoiMO |Au|A 


epiiuojqjQ aua|Aqi 3 


3U3|Aq}30J0|q3J3<J 


3P!J0|q3BJ}31 UOqJEQ 


spuoiqojQ 3U3|Aq;3 


uuojojoiqo 


3U3q)30J0|q3IJl 


spuomo 3U3 |Al(J3^ 


3U3ZU3Q 


C-26 


BAAQMD Study 

























































































Figure C4-20. Santa Rosa Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant 



■ 







-;';r~' - 


:. 


in 

9 

LU 

O 

O 


in 

in 

in 

in 

9 

9 

9 

9 

LU 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

o 

o 

o 

o 

in 

o 

in 

o 

CO 

ci 

cvi 

oi 


in 

9 

UJ 

O 

in 


in 

9 

UJ 

o 

o 


<o 

9 

UJ 

o 

o 

in 


>jS|j jeouoo euiuejii |Dnp!A|pu| 


auaruag 


apjjomo |Aui.a 


apjUJOjqiQ aua|Aqi3 


apijoiqoejjai uoqjeQ 


apjjoiqojQ auaiAqjg 


C 

o 

3 

o 

Q. 


ujjojojoimo 


auaqiaojoiqojji 


auaiAqiaojoiqojag 


apuomo aua|Aqja^ 


o 

*? 

UJ 

o 

o 

o 



C-27 


BAAQMD Study 































































Figure C4-21. Vallejo Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant 



in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

CD 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

Ul 

UJ 

UJ 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

in 

o 

in 

o 

in 

q 

q 

CO 

co 

cvi 

04 

T~ 


in 


>fS|J jooudo euj!40j!| |Dnp|A!pu| 


apMOIMO l^ u !A 


auazuag 


spjiuojqia 3U3|Aqi3 


apuo|i|3eJi3i uoqjBQ 


spuoiqoiQ 3U0|Aqjg 


ujjojojomo 


3U3|AlR30J0|q3J3d 


9U3q}30J0|q3Ul 


apuomo 3U3|Aqiaw 


C-28 


BAAQMD Study 













































































Figure C4-22. Walnut Creek Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant 


3 U 3 ZU 3 Q 



gpuomo |Au|a 


3P!Ui0jq;a 3U3|Aqi3 


3 P!J 0 |g 3 BJi 3 i uoqjeo 


3puo|qojQ suaiAqjg 


lujojojoimo 


3U3|Aqj30JO|qoJ3d 


3 PU 0 |M 0 3 U 3 |Alfl 3 W 


3U3qj30JO|qoui 


in 

9 

in 

9 

in 

9 

in 

9 

in 

9 

in 

9 

in 

9 

in 

9 


o 

? 

ID 

UJ 

Ul 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 


UJ 

o 

o 

O 

O 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

q 


o 

o 

00 


to 

in 


CO 

oi 

▼— 

H 

o 


>(S|i jeouDO euuijow |Dnp!Ai.pu| 



C-29 


BAAQMD Study 






























































Figure C6-1. Bakersfield Cancer Risk by Pollutant 




' ... ••. < ■ ■ . •- • •••'• '■•••' ' ■ " 

• ■ ■ 

p-M ,1 ^. 


3U3ipeing-e‘l 


O 

LU 

O 

GO 


o 


LU 

o 


o 

UJ 

o 

o 


m 

in 

in 

in 

o 

o 

o 

o 

UJ 

UJ 

LU 

LU 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

CO 

(0 


w 


o 

o 

+ 

LU 

o 

o 

o 


5isu jaoueo auuiajji |enpiA|pu| 


>> 

3 

4J 

CO 


PQ 

O 


C-30 



























































Figure C6-2. Burbank Cancer Risk by Pollutant 




■■■ - V >. v <-r<. :'v> .•< 

»>■>*•> ■ A-N*\ -V-W W.A 

■' V .' S'. <\ sV 

- - ■■■■■■ 


' Y;V-— r ^~ 

;■ .< < ■ .. «f , i„ ■!,&. .. 

fef <» vv <* •• ■'- m <-. K?i^e- iifs*;.'* $ 




apAqapieiaov 


3 U 3 !pejna-c‘t 



*«y 


**r 



IT) 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

U) 

o 

in 

o 

in 

o 

o 

n 

CO 

04 

04 

▼— 


in 


)jsu jaoueo atupajH jenpiAjpui 


o 

o 


o 

o 


3 

CO 

PQ 

Ph 

< 

o 


C-31 

















































Figure C6-3. Chico-Salem Cancer Risk by Pollutant 



3U3|AlH90J0|l|3UJL 


3U3|AlJ130JOmOJ3d 


dpuomo 3U3|Aq}3|A| 


spAqspieuuod 


apuomoip 3U3|Agi3 


spiuiojqjp 3U3|Aqi3 


ujjojojomo 


spjjomoejjsi uoqjBQ 


3U3ZU30 


3pAq3p|e;30v 


3U3!PBing-e‘i. 


o 


Pollutant 































































Figure C6-4. Chula Vista Cancer Risk by Pollutant 



o 

CM 


in 

in 

in 

in 

o 

o 

o 

o 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

ill 

o 

o 

§ 

o 

o 

p 

p 

GO 

(d 


csi 


>{su jaoueo aiUQajji |enp;A;pu| 


auaiAqiaojoiqouj. 


eusiAqieojomojdd 


ap!JO|L|0 3U3|Al|)3^ 


apAqap|Eiujoj 


apuoiLjoip aua|Ai]i3 


c 

TO 


apiuiojqjp aua|Aqi3 


o 

CL 


lujojojomo 


apjJonjoBjjaj uoqjeo 


auazuag 


apAqapieiaov 


auajpB;ng-e‘i. 


d 

ML) 

m 

CQ 

§ 

O 


C-33 























































Figure C6-5. Citrus Heights Cancer Risk by Pollutant 




3U3lAl4l30J0lipi.il 


3U3|Al443OJO|q0J3d 


3P!J0|ip 3U3|Aq}3|fl 


spAqspieuuod 


apuomoip 3U3|Ai|43 


c 

CO 


spimojqip 3U3|At4i3 js 


o 

CL 


UJJO|OJO|no 


3P!J0|L|0ejJ3J UOqjEQ 


3U3ZU30 


spAqspiepov 


3U3!peing-e‘i 



C-34 





















































Figure C6-6. Concord Cancer Risk by Pollutant 


auaiAqiaojoiqouj. 




apjiuojqjp auaiAqjg 



iujojojoimo 


apuoiqoBJiaj uoqjeo 


auazuag 


apAqapieiaov 


auaipqng-e'i 



>, 

T3 

3 

-u 

m 

CQ 

P5 

< 

U 


C-35 


Pollutant 













































Figure C6-7. El Cajon Cancer Risk by Pollutant 


WWW 



.■ . > -• x.> 


■ : • >- '■ 

■.H M s »■&« > 


:j 5 S¥«sj$‘: 


^V\VA\\^'AV.VAy.V.Ay.W.\>WV.«w - ' ■ . . . .vX'. -"X - 

, \ > , y ssSK-fc*<s&•$* \\v>v .?»& 

. toil y ita - 

.'“ ?• ; .V*. r : -^x;v' M- ',;* % 

- ■■ :■- • ■■ .^ -V:-:.. ■■-. ... -<•■•■- ■■■ > 7 -.■•■■■•• > •• .:. - . .::_— 


LU 

O 


UI 

o 

CO 


o 

UJ 

o 


UJ 

o 

CVJ 


o 

o 


in 

in 

in 

in 

o 

o 

o 

o 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

o 

o 

od 

<£> 


ci 


yjsu J90U60 aiuij0|!i |enp;A;pu| 


C-36 


Pollutant 































































Figure C6-8. El Monte Cancer Risk by Pollutant 



C-37 












































Figure C6-9. Fremont Cancer Risk by Pollutant 



m 

in 

in 

in 

o 

o 

o 

o 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

p 

p 

GO 

cd 




>{su jaoueo 3Ui!)3|j| |enpjA;pu| 


C-38 


Pollutant 































































Figure C6-10. Fresno - First St. Cancer Risk by Pollutant 


o 


3U0|Al|l3OJO|L|3!J_L 


aua|Aiflaojomojad 


apuo|i|3 aua|Ai|jaw 



apAgapieujJoj 


apuomojp auaiALijg 


apiiuojqjp aua|Aqi3 


UJJOJOJO|L|0 



§ 

cvi 



UJ 

o 





to 

in 

in 

in 

o 

o o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

UJ 

LU 

UJ 

LU 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

o 

o 

o 

S 

o 

o 

o 

o 

CO 

eg 

o 

o 

o 

o 

v-^ 

v r— 


ad 

CO 


cvi 


>jsu jaoueo eiujiaju |enp;Aipu| 


o 

o 

+ 

LU 

O 


o 


apuomoeJiaj uoqjeo 


auazuag 


3 

a 

* 


apAqap|B;aov 


auajpemg-eH 
































































Figure C6-11. Fresno - Olive Cancer Risk by Pollutant 



in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

CD 

o 

til 

LLi 

UJ 

UJ 

LLI 

1u 

111 

o 

O 

o 

o 

O 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 


CO 

in 


CO 

cvj 

T-f 


>fsu jaoueo auipajii |enp;A!pu| 


C-40 


















































Figure C6-12. Los Angeles Cancer Risk by Pollutant 




au3!pe;ng-£‘i 


^su jaoueo aimiajji lenpjAjpuj 


9U3|Aq}3OJO|L|0!Jl 


au3|Aifl90JO|L|ojad 


apuo|L|0 auaiAqia^ 


apAqapiewjoj 


apuomojp aua|Aqig 


ap.iujojqjp aua|Aqig 


ujjoiojomo 


apuo|i|OBiiai uoqjeo 


auazuag 


apAqapieiaov 



C-41 


Pollutant 














































Figure C6-13. Merced Cancer Risk by Pollutant 



■- v ^§ && > $» > ~ ip i** 

. &3m<k ' ; •:•>. ss.\ n svNs > vxvv - -.\\v ' ' . ,x\\n> "•“•• v > \ < a •» > ~ ,< v' .<<« xs' < >< 

'H fpf' vK'V-x « >-v >r 
HI -- " ' ISlH 

■ ■■■ - - . 

s*w "'vl.* -' ~ 

' »\ - ' ■ Ax'a* x - '^v ' s .'<,"^i :«■ '*■**-<'> <- :<*♦■•' - ' { 

' 

■ 

i. y£ SjSc^'?§^■> J w^.v>-x^^SssStt&*&&&§£ \-v- %&>\ < * •.'*\<~ ¥&»*«« £%£ &?&&•', 
* •^'\--<." <.*'.—yW\-^' >* r v >< v > ''^'vV^ ^'?\>;.\<x-''' * . vV>' 

■■:. -' ■• -.< >- • ■■■;- ■ -■ 

' - A'i ■ sV. "A j- -■ vw K> > ' : “' a: A v - ^ n "-- 

• : ' ■ ' . C . ' - x'-.-.' ..■ "-.'■ 

S'lNva >* \\ *< ^ w~ V. X N* * 

A ■ 

■•■ A. ' ' ' A- .. .;^.' :. , _ . 

. . . •■■;■■■ • - ■ • ■■ 

■ . • '' •• 

;.v V x -. N. ^ <■ ' v ^\^ v<;' N ,v>< 'v-K^-yV* ' ' - - s y\ ^ ', ' ?>><> V - V ' ' 




^ ' ' A- ^ ,'< 

.. SS&j»5sx-, a. . v- >. <: 5©>S ■. : ,%.\ \^ > <•:$*: >• ,2S.»K-iit> % v 

■ V : S. 'V<- ■ ■ • ■ ' 

. - ■ - : ■ ■ ■ ■ J - : ' " ' 
VV.A'^ •< ^ V .^ >-' v ' ' - ^ ' <- '' 

^ V". > ^>* ■ < y.' Ty' y . *\ >^' 

^ •-- ' v -,' •■ >' 

>-:-: .-SS.S: A>.-':^x-x-x-v: vi^-io; 




tn 

o 

ill 

o 

o 

ri 


>fsu jaoueo aui!)9|!| |enpiAipu| 




C-42 


Acetaldehyde Formaldehyde 

Pollutant 





























Figure C6-14. Modesto - 14th Street Cancer Risk by Pollutant 


auaiAqiaojoiqouj. 



aua|Aqiaojo|qojad 


apuomo auajAqjaw 


ap;joma;p aua|Aqjg 




apjiuojqjp aua|Aqi3 


uijojojomo 


apuomoejiai uoqjeo 


auazuag 



auajpejng-e'i 


O 

UJ 


tu 

o 

CO 


UJ 


o 

■ 

UJ 

o 

CM 


in 

in 

in 

in 

o 

o 

o 

CD 

UJ 

111 

UJ 

UJ 

o 

o 

o 

CD 

o 

o 

CD 

O 

CO 

CD 


cvi 


CD 

O 

+ 

UJ 

CD 

O 

CD 


^su jaoueo auniajn |enpjAipu| 


3 

4-> 

m 


CQ 

O 


C-43 























































Figure C6-15. Modesto Cancer Risk by Pollutant 



C-44 











































Figure C6-16. North Long Beach Cancer Risk by Pollutant 




3U3|Alfl30J<J|H3!Jl 


3U3|Al|l30J0|l(3J3(J 


dp;J0|l|3 3U3|AL|}3^ 


spAqapieiujoj 


spuomsip 3U3|AL|)3 


apiujojqip 9U3|Aq}3 


ujJO|OJO|qo 


3P!J0|q3BJ13l UOqjBQ 


3U3ZU3Q 


3pAq3p|B)33V 


3 U 3 !PB;na-e‘l 


in 

oi 


>)sjj jaouBo auipajji |enpjA;pu| 


C-45 

















































Figure C6-17. Richmond Cancer Risk by Pollutant 


suaiAmaojoinoui 



auaipong-eH 


in 

IT) 

in 

o 

o 

o 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

GO 

<d 

rf 


)\su jaoueo auijiajH |enpiA;pu| 


aua|A^aoiomojad 


apuoiqo aua|Aqjaw 


apAqapieiujoj 


apuoniojp auaiAqjg 


apiiuojqip aua|Aqi3 


lujojojomo 


apuomoeJiaj uoqjeo 


auazuag 


apAqapiejaov 


X! 

a 

-u 

CO 

CQ 

3 

O 


C-46 


Pollutant 






































































Figure C6-18. Rubidoux Cancer Risk by Pollutant 




auaiAqiaojoiqouj. 


aua|AiflaoJO|qojad 


apijoiqo aue|Aqiaw 


apAqapieujJOj 


apuoiqojp auajAqjg 


apfiuojqjp auaiAqjg 


uijojojoiqo 


apuoiqoBJiai uoqjBQ 


auazuag 


apAqap|Bjaov 


auaipBing-e‘1. 





C-47 


Pollutant 
























































Figure C6-19. San Francisco - Arkansas Cancer Risk by Pollutant 



■ 

• ■ _ • 


---- 


^V-- x-'x 

V J. ;.V sv U : > . 

' s\*W ■> < 


apuo|ip auaiAijjaw 


apAqapieiiiJoj 


apuomoip aua|Aqig 


c 

ca 


apjiuojqip aua|Aqi3 3 


o 

o_ 


\Y, 

. 

& 




uiJO|OJO|qo 


apuoiipejjai uoqjeo 


auazuag 


apAqapieiaov 


auajpeing-e‘1 


*r 

o 

UJ 

o 

Csl 


UJ 

o 

o 


to 

o 

UJ 

o 

o 


to 

o 

• 

UJ 

o 

o 

to 


to 

o 


UJ 


to 

o 

■ 

UJ 


o 

o 


o 

o 


y\su jaoueo eiujiaj!! |enpiA;pu| 


C-48 

























































Figure C6-20. San Jose Cancer Risk by Pollutant 


auaiAqiaojoiqoui 



>|su J0OUB3 aiu;^!! jenpjAjpui 


euaiAniaojoiijojad 


apuoiqa auaiAipaw 


apAqapieuiJOd 


apuomojp aua|Aqj3 


apjiuojqip aua|Aqig 


ujjojojomo 


apijoiqoe.ua} uoqjeo 


auazuag 


apAqapieiaov 


auaipejng-0‘1. 


C-49 


Pollutant 




















































Figure C6-21. Santa Barbara - Carrillo Cancer Risk by Pollutant 



^ s. " \ ~ x ^ 

: : • •..x-.y A . .v., , ,-. *>•>•% v:->\- . 

x - x»'x.,^ -,xX-:>Vw\ w v > SV^y x-V^x- >"< 


xx-i $ 50 , i ■$' ' x> A .xX- ;«£ ^-.; ££ S? •»' «jSi ^ 

** v * »^ . . 


3 uaipeina-e‘|. 


apjiuojqip aua|Aqi 3 _3 


auazusg 


auaiAqiaojoiqouj. 


apuoiqoip auaiAqjg 


uijojojomo 


apuoiqaejja; uoqjeQ 


apAqapiejaov 


aua|Aqiaojo|qojad 


apAqapieiujOd 


apuoiqo aua|Aqiaw 


>)su jsoubo aui!)3^| |enp;A;pu| 


>> 

T3 

3 

-4J 

CG 

PQ 

Ph 

< 

U 


C-50 









































Figure C6-22. Simi Valley - Cochran Cancer Risk by Pollutant 




auaiAqjaojoiqaui 


3U3|Aq)3OJOm0j3cj 


apNO|ip aua|Aqia^ 


apAgapjeiujoj 


apuoigojp aua|Aqig 


apjiuoiqip aua|Ain3 


ujjoiojomo 


ap!JO|qoej;aj uoqjeQ 


auazuag 


apAqapiejaov 


auaipeing-e‘1 


>jsu J9DUB0 aui;^!| |enpjA;pu| 


05 

~o 

Q_ 




C-51 


























































Figure C6-23. Stockton Cancer Risk by Pollutant 









' ' ■-■■■■■. 


:\ xn-. -v 


wX'Vv.iSvN'SAv 

: 









si 




up 


--- 



apiiuojqtp aua|Aqig 


uijojojomo 


epiJomoBJiai uoqjEQ 


auazuag 


apAqapiejaov 


auajpeing-e‘1. 


O 

LU 


O 

UJ 

o 

CM 



in 

in 

in 

in 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 


ad 

CO 


CM 


^sij jaouBO 0iu!i9}i| lenpiAi.pui 


o 

o 

+ 

Ul 

o 

o 

o 


C-52 


Pollutant 























































Figure C6-24. Upland Cancer Risk by Pollutant 




auaiAijisojoiipul 


aua|Ai|jaojo|L|ojad 


apuoigo aua|Aqjaw 


apAqapieujjod 


apuoiqojp auaiAqjg 


apiiuojqjp aua|Aqj3 


uuojojomo 


apuoiqoejja; uoqjeo 


auazuag 


apAqapiejaov 


auaipejng-e'i. 




■ 





in 

in 

in 

in 

o 

o 

o 

o 

cp 

o 

o 

UJ 

UJ 

ill 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

o 

CD 

§ 

o 

o 

o 

o 


CNJ 

o 

o 

o 

CD 



T- 

oo 

CO 

TT 

csi 


O 

CD 

+ 





>jsu jaoueo |enp!A;pu| 



C-53 























































Figure C7-1. Site One Cancer Risk by Pollutant 


apuoiqo |Au;a 



aueiflsiuojomoui 

auaqjaojoiqoui 

auamaojomoEJiai 

WOd 

la^oiN 

apuoigo |Aqiayy 
auajpBjnqojomoExaH 
jnoq e • apAi|ap|BiuJO j 
auBijiaaioJomoja 

tuniuiojqo 

apuomoBJja; uoqjBQ 

auazuag 

apAqapiBjaov 

auBqjaojoiqoia-3‘1. 

auBqjaoujojqia-3‘1. 

auaqiaojoiqoia-l‘1 

auEqjaoJO|qo!Ji-2‘i.‘i. 

auBqiaojo|qoEJiai-2‘2‘ i‘ \. 




O 

o 

UJ 

ill 

o 

o 

in 

o 

04 

oi 


O 

< 

UJ 

o 

IT) 


UJ 

o 

o 


in 

o 

■ 

tii 

o 

o 

in 


+ 

UJ 


>jsu jaoueo auinaj!i |enp;Aipu| 


C-54 


Pollutant 
































































Figure C7-2. Site Two Cancer Risk by Pollutant 



apuoiqo |Au;a 
sueipauiojoiqoui 

auamaojoiqoui 

euaiflaojoiqoejiai 

WOd 

|3)|0!N 

apuomo |Aqiaw 
auajpBinqojomoexaH 

jnoq z ■ apAqapiBUUoj 

auBqiaujoJomoia 

uinjujojqo 

apuoiqoBJjaj uoqjBQ 

auazuag 

apAqap|Bjaov 

auBmaojoiqoia-2‘1. 

auBqiaoaiOjqia-j‘1. 

auaqiaojo|qo!a-i‘i 

auBqjaojO|qoui-2‘i‘l- 


euBqjaoiO|qoBJ|ai-2‘3‘ j.‘ i 


C-55 


Columbus Study 




























































Figure C7-3. Site Three Cancer Risk by Pollutant 



■* -^’'- s \ <s^ ^ '' - V~q ' N.'>■#. 


. .- ”7 .— ■' '” ’ ' - 

', ' s' '- 

■ • ' ■ ' 

. '.'• vV ‘- < V- . ' v's 

. 


.......ssip&Sa^Spc» 

x| >v > 


■ • ■ 

,. v ........... .... 


MH0I 

_ 


W\H 

apuoiqo |Aqiaw 
auaipeinqoJomoexaH 
jnoq c - apAqapiBuuoj 
aueiflsiuojoiqoia 

uumiuojqQ 

apuomoejjai uoqjeo 

auazuaa 

apAqapiejaov 

aueqiaoJoiqoia-3‘1. 

aueqiaoiuojqia-2‘1 

auaqiaojoiqoja-i'i 

aueqiaojo|qoui-2‘i.‘l 
auEqjaoJO|qoej}ai-2‘3‘ i' i 


LU 

O 

<NI 


LU 

o 

o 


in 

in 

in 

in 

o 

o 

o 

o 

LU 

LU 

LU 

LU 

o 

o 

O 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

oo 

CO 


CM 


o 

o 

4* 

LU 

O 

o 


>(su J90UB0 auipajH |enpiAipu| 


C-56 


Columbus Study 



























































































Figure C7-4. Site Four Cancer Risk by Pollutant 




apuoiqs |Au;a 
auemauiojoiipuj. 

auaqiaaioiqsuj. 

auamaoioiuoejiai 

WOd 

|3>10!N 

apijoigo |Aqjaw 
auajpejnqojomoexaH 
jnoq e - apAqapieiujoj 

auBqiauiojoiqoia 

uimwojqo 

apuoiqoBJjaj uoqjBQ 

auazuag 

apAqapiBiaov 

auBqiaojoiqoia-3‘1. 

auBqiaotuojqia-2‘1. 

auaqjaojoiqoja-l‘1 

auBqjaoJO|q3!Ji-2‘i.‘i. 


auBq;aojo|q3BJjai-2‘2‘ i‘ i 


e 

to 


o 

CL 


T3 

3 

-L> 

m 

co 

3 

32 

£ 

o 

O 


>jsu J90UB0 aiU!}3}!| |enp!A|pu| 


C-57 











































































Figure C7-5. Site Five Cancer Risk by Pollutant 



C-58 


Columbus Study 


































































Figure C7-6. Site Six Cancer Risk by Pollutant 




)fsu jaoueo duuiajjl lenpjAjpui 


LD 

O 

• 

lli 

o 

o 

ci 


auei|i 0 UJOJO|i| 3 !Ji 


auaifldoioiipjJi 


auaqiao.ioiq3e.qai 


WOd 


| 35 ( 3 !N 


apuoiqa |Aqjaw 


auajpejnqojomoexaH 


apuoiqaeqai uoqjeo 


auazuag 


apAqapiBjaov 


auBqjaoJOiqoiQ-2‘1. 


aueqiaoiuojqia-j'i. 


auaiflaojoiqoiQ-i. 1 !. 


auBqiaojoiqoiJi-j'i'l 


auBqjaojo|q3BJiai-3‘3‘ i 


apiJ 0 |L |3 |Au;a 


jnoq e - apAqapieiujoj 


auBq)aui 0 J 0 |q 3 !Q 


uimwojqo 


C-59 


Columbus Study 



































































Figure Cl 1-1. Anaheim Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant 



p ;*" "*. ' : 1 . 

AASi? > <• ■ 


ausipevig-eU 


3U3M)3OJOm0 



lii 

■>>» 

»>v>a J 


3uenj30tuojq!P-2‘i 


3U3ZU3Q 


c 

o 

suemsuiojoiqoui 3 
O 

Q_ 


apAi|ap|euuoj 


3ueq)3UiOJom3ej;3i 


3 U 3 q; 3 OJ 0 |i| 3 ej; 3 i 


apAqapiejsov 


auaqjaojoiqojJi 


Tf 


'f 





2 , 


o 

.-i® 

•r* 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 


*? 

y 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

Ul 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 


O 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 


O 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 


<J> 

ad 

K 

to 

in 

'T 

ci 

04 

r- 

o 



>iSjj jeouDO eui;|0)!i |Dnp;A;pu| 


C-60 


SCAQMD Study 























































Figure Cl 1-2. Azusa Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant 



;■ 






9 

9 

9 

9 

UJ 

UJ 

Ul 

UJ 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

© 

<T> 

ad 

1^ 

CD 





Tf 

9 

9 

9 

9 

UJ 

Ul 

Ul 

Ul 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

in 


cd 

cvi 


)fsu jaoueo aiupajn lenpiAjpui 


9 

UJ 

o 


o 

9 

UJ 

o 

o 

o 


aueq;3UJOJomoei)3i 


0U9L(13OJOm3Bj;ai 


3U3lfi3OJO|lJ0|Ji 


3 pAi| 3 p|e; 33 V 






C-61 


SCAQMD Study 





























































Figure Cl 1-3. Burbank Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant 



■ « 



rr 

rr 

Tt 





9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

uj 

LU 

UJ 

111 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

tu 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

<ji 

CO 

1^ 

(6 

in 


CO 

04 


)js;j jeouDO euuuejii |onp!A;pu| 


3ueifl3OJ0|ip!p-2 U 


auaqiaojoiqo 


auazueg 


aueiflaouJOjqip-jU 


5 


3UBL|}3UI0J0|q3Ej;31 


3 U 3 LnaOJO|q 3 BJJ 31 


auaqjaoioiqojJi 


3 U 3 i.pevig-e‘i 


C-62 


SCAQMD Study 


































































Figure Cl 1-4. Hawthorne Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant 



eueinauiojomoijj. 


eueqjaujojomoejjai 


9U9Lfl9OJ0|H0BJJ9J_ 


9U3l)l90J0|L|DIJ_L 



Tj* 


TT 






o 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

T 

9 

*? 

UJ 

HI 

HI 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

LU 

UJ 

UJ 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

O 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

O 

o 

O) 

ad 

1^ 

CD 

in 


00 

04 


o 


>|S|j jgoudo euiuejn |Dnp|A!pu| 


C-63 


SCAQMD Study 






















































Figure Cl 1-5. Pico Rivera Average Cancer Risk by Pollutant 


< 

v 

in 



SSI 


. \ ’ •• • .s. • • v 






ISlllI 




' 


■ ‘V, 

:> V 

•^vsw: : v v ; 

• .-xV-'V... 


• - 

■ ■- _, • "i"' '" 

yxs AKV.-.t l.vXvk.W .v. .*>X 


■ ' 


in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

to 

o 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

o 

1 

o 

uj 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

T 

UJ 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

iq 

o 

in 

o 

in 

o 

o 

o 

o 

CO 

CO 

oi 

c\i 

r- 

T™ 

in 

o 


>|S!J jeouDO euLHjejn iDnpiAjpui 


apAciapieiujoj 



9pAgap|Biaov 






C-64 


Pollutant 




























Figure C13-1. Carthage Cancer Risk by Pollutant 


apuomo |Au|a 


auaioaoJomoBJjai 


auaieqmdeN 


apuomo aua|Aqjaw 


auaipeinqojomoexaH 


aueiflaujojomo 


uuojojomo 


apuomoejjaj uoqjEQ 


UiJOJOUJOJa 


auazuag 


auajpejna-C'L 


auBqiaojo|qo!Q-2‘L 


auBqiaojo|qoui-2‘i.‘l 


auBqjaojo|qoBJ}ai-3‘3‘ i 


LU 

O 

O 

in 


o 


LU 

O 

in 


o 

o 


o 

in 


o 

i 

UJ 

O 

in 


LU 

O 

o 


LU 

O 

in 


o 

UJ 


o 

o 


o 

o 

4* 

UJ 

O 

o 

o 


jjsu jaoueo aui!ia|!i lenpjAjpui 



C-65 


Pollutant 




















































C-66 


















































Figure Cl3-3. Winton Place State Cancer Risk by Pollutant 



C-67 










































Figure C14-1. Bayley Seton Cancer Risk by Pollutant 



"• •• •; : .. 

' 

'' 


-.vv-v- 

■ 



V. ■ ' ' 


■ O' 
tor 


in 

m 

in 

in 

in 

m 

CD 

«? 

<? 

S> 

<? 

<? 

? 

<? 

LU 

LU 

LU 

LU 

LU 

LU 

LU 

o 

O 

o 

O 

<=> 

o 

O 

in 

o 

in 

o 

in 

o 

o 

co 

CO 

CNI 

ci 



in 


3U3|Al|}30J0|l|3J3d 


UJJ 0 } 0 J 0|40 


ap!J0|ipej}3i uoqjBO 


luniiupeo 


uuojouiojg 


uin;||Aj3g 


3 U 3 ZU 39 


OjUSSJV 


3ueqi30jomo!p-2‘|. 


3UBifl30JO|qo!Ji-3‘i.‘l 


+ 

UJ 


o 

O 


>isu jaoueo aui;)9}!i jenpiAjpui 


C-68 


NOTE: A "0" means the pollutant was not monitored at this site. Staten Island Study 














































Figure Cl 4-2. Carteret Cancer Risk by Pollutant 



<? 

<? 

rr 

<? 

? 

<? 

in 

<? 

m 

UJ 

LU UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

o 

o 

o o 

o 

o 

o 

in 

o 

in o 

in 

o 

o 

CO 

CO 

04 04 



in 


>fs;j jaoueo atmiaj!i lenpjAjpui 


o 


o 


UJ 


8UEL|J30J0|H0!P*2‘ l 


auBiflaojoinoui-2‘1‘1. 



C-69 


NOTE: A "0" means the pollutant was not monitored at this site. Staten Island Study 






























Figure Cl 4-3. Dongan Cancer Risk by Pollutant 



LO 

in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

to 

<? 

<? 

«? 

<? 

<? 


o 

LU 

I&l 

LU 

LU 

LU 

LU 

LU 

o 

o 

O 

o 

O 

O 

o 

to 

o 

in 

o 

in 

O 

o 

CO 

CO 


<vi 


f— 

in 


)jsu jaoueo aiui;0}!i |enp;A;pu| 


C-70 


NOTE: A "0" means the pollutant was not monitored at this site. Staten Island Study 
























































Figure Cl4-4. Elizabeth Cancer Risk by Pollutant 



«? 

LU 


LO 

IT) 

in in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

<? 

<? 

o <9 

<? 

<? 

<? 

9 

S> 

Ill 

Ill 

111 LLJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ ' 

UJ 

Q 

o 

o o 

O 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

CT> 

ad 

to 

in 


cd 

C 4 



y\s\i jaouBO aiuija)!! |enpjA!pu| 


o 

o 

LU 


uinjiuoiqo 


|3))0!N 


auainaojoigoui 


aua|Ai4;a0J0|i|0jad 


tujojojomo 


apuomoBJjai uoqjBO 


ujnjUjpBO 


ra 

"o 

Q_ 


ujjojouiojg 


ujn;i|Ajag 


auazuag 


omasjv 


auBLpaojoiqoip-2‘1. 


auBmaojomoui-2 1 1‘i. 


co 


C 

<D 

-u> 

cd 

-u 

co 


<6 

-u 

• r-H 

CO 

co 

• f-H 

cd 

<D 

S* 

O 

-u 

• f-H 

C 

o 

£ 

4-S 

o 

C 



O 

























































Figure Cl 4-5. Eltingville Cancer Risk by Pollutant 



|9>P!N 


susmaojoigouj. 


3U3|Alfl3OJ0|l|3J3d 


ujjopjomo 


3P!J0|L|0BJ131 uoqjeo 


tunjtupeo 


tujojoujojg 


uimnAjsg 


auazuag 


0jU3SJV 


3uei|j30J0|q3!p-3‘i 


3uem30JO|qo!Ji-2‘|.‘i 


co 


o 

o_ 


)\su jaoueo auipajH lenpjAipui 


C-72 


NOTE: A "0" means the pollutant was not monitored at this site. Staten Island Study 













































Figure Cl4-6. Great Kills Cancer Risk by Pollutant 



in 

in 

in 

<? 

«? 

9 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

o 

o 

o 

in 

o 

in 

<NI 

cvi 



in 

<? 


to 


aueqiaujojomojQ 


|3)|0!N 


auaqjaojoiipui 


3U3|AinaojO|ipjed 


uiJOjojoiMO 


3pjjo|i|3Bjj3} uoqjeo 


lunjiupeo 


ujjojoiuojg 


uinjnAjag 


auazuag 


omasjv 


03 


o 

CL 


3ueqi30Jom3!p-2‘i 


3UBL(13OJ0|l|0jJ_L-2‘ 


O 

O 

+ 

LU 

o 

o 

o 


y\s\i jaoueo awpajH |enpiAipu| 


C-73 


NOTE: A "0" means the pollutant was not monitored at this site. Staten Island Study 






































Figure Cl 4-7. Piscataway Cancer Risk by Pollutant 




- 

' xv i, x 
/-.s' V 

■ 


■ X 



to 

in 

in 

in 

to 

o 

<? 

«? 

°? 

o 

• 

LLi 

LLi 

LU 

UJ 

LU 

O 

O 

CD 

CD 

o 

to 

o 

to 

O 

o 

ci 

04 

▼— 

▼“ 

in 


l»P!N 


3U3l|130J0|l|3UJ_ 


8U3|AlflSOJO|HOJ3d 


iujojojoimo 


apuomoeJiai uoqjBQ 


luniuipeo 


uuojouiojg 


luninAjdg 


3U3ZU3g 


o;u3sjv 


3UBlfl3OJO|q0!p-2‘l. 


3UBlfl30iO|qOUl-2‘l.‘l 


m 


o 

CL 


+ 

LU 


O 

o 


>isij jaoueo awiiajH |enpiA;pu| 


C-74 


NOTE: A "0” means the pollutant was not monitored at this site. Staten Island Study 











































Figure Cl4-8. Port Richmond Cancer Risk by Pollutant 




ir> 

<? 


LU 


in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

ss 

<? 

«? 

<? 

<? 

S> 

S> 

<? 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

o 

o 

<=> 

o 

o 

o 

<=> 

in 

o 

in 

o 

in 

CD 

CD 

CO 

CO 

oi 

csi 

▼- 


in 


O 

o 


LU 

o 


aueiflaujojo|i|3!a 


4; 


|3M0!N 


9U3l(130J0|L|0|JX 


3U3|Alfl30J0|ipj3d 


ajjojojomo 


9piJ0|l(DBJJ0l UOqjBO 


lunjiupeo 


ra 


o 

a_ 


ujjojoujojg 


uininAjag 


3U3ZU39 


3|U3SJV 


3UBifl3OJ0|q3!p-2‘i 


3UBlfl3OJ0m0Ul-2‘l.‘l 


>ts;j J90UB0 aun)3j!i |enp;A;pu| 


C-75 


NOTE: A "0" means the pollutant was not monitored at this site. Staten Island Study 












































Figure Cl 4-9. PS 26, Travis Cancer Risk by Pollutant 



in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

o 

<? 

<? 


<? 

<? 

LU 

UJ 

LU 

LU 

LU 

LU 

o 

O 

o 

O 

O 

o 

in 

o 

in 

o 

in 

o 

CO 

CO 

ci 

csi 




eueiueuiojomojQ 


|3>P!N 


3U3lU30J0|ipUl 


3U3|Alfl30J0|l|0J3d 


ujJO)OJomo 


3P!J0|l|3BJJ3J uoqjeo 


luniuipBO 


ujjojouiojg 


o 

Q_ 


lunjnAjsg 


3U3ZU3g 


omasjv 


3UEm3OJ0|M0!P*2‘l. 


3UBlfl3OJ0|HD!il-2‘l.‘l 


lli 

o 

O 

IT) 


LU 

o 


)jsu jeoueo aiu;)dj!| |enp;Aipu| 


C-76 


NOTE: A "0" means the pollutant was not monitored at this site. Staten Island Study 































































Figure Cl 4-10. Pump Station Cancer Risk by Pollutant 



3Ueifl3UJ0J0|l|3!(] 


|3>P!N 


3U3l|)30J0|l|0jJJ. 


3U3|AlfJ30J0|l|3J3d 


Uijojojoino 


3 p;j 0 |i| 06 j) 3 ) uoqjeo 


lumwpeo 


uuojoujojg 


ujnjii Ajag 


3U3ZU30 


OjUSSJV 


3ueni3OJO|H0!p-3‘i 


3UBlfl3OJ0|q0Ul-3‘l.‘l 


as 


o 

Q. 




>|s;j jaoueo auijiain |enp!Ai.pu| 




C-77 


NOTE: A "0" means the pollutant was not monitored at this site. Staten Island Study 

















































Figure Cl 4-11. Sewaren Cancer Risk by Pollutant 



to 

in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

CO 

o 

«? 

S> 




o 

• 

LLI 

LU 

LU 

111 

LU 

LU 

LU 

O 

O 

<=> 

o 

O 

O 

o 

IQ 

o 

in 

o 

in 

O 

o 

CO 

CO 

CNJ 

oi 


<r- 

in 


)|su jqoubo aui!)3|!| |enp;A;pu| 


C-78 


NOTE: A "0" means the pollutant was not monitored at this site. Staten Island Study 






































Figure C14-12. Susan Wagner HS Cancer Risk by Pollutant 



ll 


in 

to 

IO 

IO 

in 

to 

<? 

<? 

«? 


<? 


LU 

lU 

LU 

LU 

Ill 

LU 

o 

o 

o 

O 

o 

o 

o 

to 

o 

in 

o 

o 

CO 

ci 

oi 



to 


auazuag 


3jU3S.IV 


3UBl030iOm3jp-2‘l 


aueiflaojomojji-j'i.'i 


>jsu jaoueo auiiiaju |enp;A;pu| 


3UBlfl3U10J0m3ja 


|35J3jN 


susmaojomojji 


3U3|Al|J30J0|L|3J3 c j 


lujojojojiio 


3PjJO|L|3Bj;3l UOqjBQ 


lumiupeo 


ujjojoiuojg 


uini||Ajag 


C-79 


NOTE: A "0" means the pollutant was not monitored at this site. Staten Island Study 

























































Figure Cl4-13. Tottenville Cancer Risk by Pollutant 



aueiiiauJOJOiipici 


|3>|3!N 


3Uai|)30J0m3Ul 


3U3|Al^3OJ0|l|0J3(J 


ujjojojomo 


3pU0|g0BJJ3l UOqjBQ 


tuniiupeo 


uijojouiojg 


Lunin Ajdg 


3U3ZU3g 


3JU3SJV 


co 


o 

CL 


aueqiaojolipjp-j'i. 


3UBqj30J0|q3!Ji-3‘L‘l 


Hsu jaouBO aui!)9|!| lenpjAipui 


C-80 


NOTE: A "0" mean: the pollutant was not monitored at this site. Staten Island Study 














































Figure C15-1. Site #12 Cancer Risk by Pollutant 





TT 


^r 



in 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

O 

o 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

o 

o 

o 

o 

s 

o 

o 

o 

o 

in 

o 

in 

in 

o 

o 

rr 

CO 

CO 

ci 

Csj 



in 


>|su J90UB0 aiu|iaj!| |enp;Aipu| 


C-81 


NOTE: A "0" means the pollutant was not monitored at this rite TNRCC Study 



















































Figure Cl5-2. Site #100 Cancer Risk by Pollutant 




auaipejng-e‘1 


auemaojo|i|0!a*s‘i. 


aua|Ai|}aojO|ij3!c|-|.‘l 


auemaojo|ij3!Ji-2‘t‘i. 


aueijjaojomoeJiai-2‘3‘ i' i 





TT 

lO 

LO 

m 

in 

O 

O 

o 

O 

o 

O 

o 

o 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

CO 

TT 

CNJ 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 


T“^ 



CD 

CD 


csi 


>fsu jaoueo atmiaj!| |enp;A;pu| 


auaiemndeN 


apuo|L|3 auaiAgjaw 


aueqiaiuojomo 


ujjojojomo 

Bl 

I apuoiq3G.ua} uoqjGQ 


uuojoujojg 


auazuag 


a|u;mo|Aj3v 


apAqapiejasv 


auBXO!a-^‘i. 


aua|AqiaoJO|q3GJiai 


C-82 


NOTE: A "0" means the pollutant was not monitored at t u is site. 
















































Figure C15-3. Site #102 Cancer Risk by Pollutant 



’ 




. 


au3|ei|ji|deN 
apuoiqo 3U3|Aq}e^ 

auet|)3iuojomo 

IUJOJOJO|1|0 

apuo|L(3ejj3i uoqjeo 

uuojoiuojg 

3U3ZU30 

3|!JI!UO|AJOV 
3pAq3p|BJ33V 
3UBXOjQ-£‘ J, 

3U3!PBina-e‘i 

3UBqi30J0|q3!Q-2‘i. 

3U3|Aqi30J0|q3!a-i‘i. 

3UBqiaojO|q3!Ji-2‘i‘i. 

3UBq}30J0m3BJ}31-2‘2‘ J.' [ 


ca 

J3 

o 

a. 


LLi 

o 

o 


o 

• 

LU 

O 

in 

csi 


LU 

o 

o 

csi 


o 

o 


in 

o 

• 

LU 

o 

o 


o 

o 


o 

o 


>jsu jaouBO dUijiain |enpiAipu| 


C-83 


NOTE: A "0" means the pollutant was not monitored at this c to TNRCC Study 













































Figure Cl 5-4. Site #801 Cancer Risk by Pollutant 



•' ’ " 1 1 - 

. ■ 

• . ' ■ • • 

•- y'N-y- •••*•<> .» >"*»- •■ s -.v.'^ <y>-- v > -■- ■■-•’• < 3^\ O ,.n>v - "i ' i 


. 


eUBXOlQ-t'l. 


3U3!pB;na-e‘i 


3UBI|130J0|IJ3!Q-Z‘|. 


3U3| Aqjsojomoia-U‘ l 


3UBqj3OJOm0Ul-2‘l.‘l. 


3UBm3OJOm0BJ131-2‘2‘ l‘ \, 


CO 

CD 


LU 

o 

CM 


CO 

o 


o 

ad 


<er 

o 

I 

Hi 

o 

o 

CD 


o 

I 

LU 

O 

O 


LU 

o 

o 


o 

o 

+ 

LU 

o 

o 


E- 


>jsu jgoubo aunjajij |enpiA;pu| 


means the . ..cam was no. "nor. "ed at th .s 











































Figure Cl 5-5. Site #803 Cancer Risk by Pollutant 





spuoiip |Au;a 
apjtuojq |Au;a 
eua|Aiflaojomoenai 
auaieqiqdeN 
apuojip auaiAqjaw 

aueiflaiuojoiqo 

UUOJOJO|l|0 

apuoiqoejjaj uoqjeo 

ujjojoujojg 

auazuag 

3|!J};uo|Ajov 
apAqapieiaav 

auexoia-fr‘1 

aua!pe;ng-0‘|. 

aueqiaojoiqoia-2‘1. 
aua|AqiaojO|qo!a-i.‘i 

aueqjaojoiqoui-2‘1‘1. 

aueqiaojo|qoBJiai-2‘3‘ l‘ \. 








- 


—-s—■—— 


-TJ- 



o 

o 

o 

LU 

UJ 

til 

o 

o 

o 

in 

o 

in 

csi 

ci 



Ui 

o 

o 


)\s m jaoueo d(jui}0|!| |enp;Ajpu| 


in 

o 

• 

UJ 

o 


in 


LU 

o 

<=> 



C-85 


NOTE: A "0" means the pollutant was not mor itored at this site. TNRCC Study 




















































Figure Cl 5-6. Site #804 Cancer Risk by Pollutant 



apuoiqo iAuia 
apiujoiq |Au;a 
au3|Aqiaojomoej;ai 
auaieqjqdeN 
apuoiqo auaiAqja^ 

aueiflaujojomo 

uuojoiomo 

apuoiqoejjaj uoqjEQ 

uuojoiuojg 

auazuag 

ai!Ji;uo|Ajoy 

apAqapiejaoy 

auexosQ-^'i. 

auaipejng-e'i. 

aueqjaoJOiqoja-sH 

auaiAipaojoiqoia-i. 1 !. 

aueqiaoJO|qo!Ji-2‘i.‘i. 


aueqjaoJO|qoejjai-2‘2‘ |.‘ i 


1 


c 

03 


o 

Q. 


C-86 


NOTE: A "0" means the pollutant was not monitored at this site. TNRCC Study 


























































Figure Cl 5-7. Site #807 Cancer Risk by Pollutant 



CM 

o 

• 

LLI 

O 


CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

111 

UJ 

UJ 

ill 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 


GO 


to 

uS 

O’ 

CO 

CM 


CO 

O 

LLI 

O 

o 


apuomo |Au;a 
epiiuojq |Au;a 
aua|Aq}aojo|qoej]0i 

auaieqjqdeN 
apuoiqa aua|Aqjayy 

aueqiaaiojomo 

ujjojojomo 

apuoiqoejjai uoqjeo 

ujjojoujojg 

auazuag 

3|U}IUO|AjOV 

apAqapiejaov 

auexojQ-tr'i 

aua|pB;ng-e‘i 

aueqjaojoiqoia-2‘1 

aua|AqiaojO|qo!a-|.‘i 

auBqjaoJO|qoiJi-2‘i‘i 


aueq;aojo|qoeijai-2‘3‘ |.‘ 


c 

co 


2 I 


UJ 

O 

O 


y\su jaoueo aiujiajji |enp;Aipu| 


C-87 


NOTE: A "0" means the pollutant was not monitored at this site. TNRCC Study 




































Figure Cl5-8. Site #808 Cancer Risk by Pollutant 



3ueift3iuojo|ijo 

uijopjomo 

apijoiipens; uoqjeo 

uuojoujojg 

auazuag 

3|U^U0|AJ0V 

apAi|3p|e}30v 

auexoia-fr'l 

9U3jpevig-e‘I. 

3UBifl30Jomoia-2‘i. 

3U3|Aifl30JO|qo!a-i.‘i. 

auBipaojoiqo! l* l 

3UBq^oiomoBjpi-2‘2‘ i‘ i 


«j 

"o 

Q_ 


)|Sjj J30UB0 9Ui;^!| lenpjAjpui 


C-88 






























































Figure Cl 5-9. Site #815 Cancer Risk by Pollutant 


-y*> V^|-. 



3 pjJ 0 |l |3 |AU|A 

apiiuojq |Au|a 

3 U 3 )Aip 3 Pi 0 |L| 3&431 
3 U 3 |eipijdeN 
ap|JO|ip ao 9 |AiRSw 

auBipaujojomo 

iujo)OJomo 

apjJoniDBJjaj uoqjeo 

ujjojouiojg 

auazuag 

3 ||J^UO|AJOV 

apAqapiejaov 

aUBXOia-tr ‘1 

3 U 3 ipBina*C‘l 

auBipaojoiqoia-^i. 

3U3|AipdoiO)gojQ-i‘i. 

3 UBlR 30 J 0 |q 3 |Jl- 2 ‘ i.‘ l 

3 U Btfjao J 0 | l |3 B fl 3 J.* 2 ‘ l.‘ l 



CO 

<=? 




? 


CD 




>jsjj jaoueo auii^ii |enpjA|pu| 




CM 


O 


o 



03 


O 

Q. 



C-89 


NOTE: A "0" means the pollutant was not monitored at this site. TNRCC Study 







































Figure Cl5-10. Site #900 Cancer Risk by Pollutant 


Hi 


W5E~ 



"" * - g5 



1*1 







K v N 


'$£- 

//; 



?????? 
LU UJ III III 111 HI 


in 

in 

in 

in 

<? 

<? 

<? 

<? 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

o 

o 

o 

<=> 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o6 

<£> 


04 


UJ 


apuoiqo |Xu;a 
epjujojq |Au;a 

9U3{Atp30JOmoej)31 
3U9|BiflqdeN 
apuoiqo aua|Aqjafl 

aoeipaoiojoin'o 

lujoiojomo 

apuomoejjaj uoqjeo 

ujjojoiuojg 

auaruag 

a|ijjjuo|Ajo v 
apAqapieiaav 

auexoi.a -^ 1 1 

auaipeyig-eH 

aueiflaojoiqoia-2‘1. 

aua|Aiflaojo|qoia-i.‘i. 

auemaojo|qo|ji-3‘i.‘i 


aueq^0J0|q3BJiai-3‘3‘ j.‘ [ 


m 


o 

a. 


)|S!i J30UB0 auijiain |enpiA;pu| 


C-90 






























































Figure Cl 5-11. Site #901 Cancer Risk by Pollutant 



C-91 


NOTE: A "0" means the pollutant was not monitored at this site. TNRCC Study 




































































Figure Cl 5-12. Site #2008 Cancer Risk by Pollutant 



C-92 


NOTE: A "0" means the pollutant was not monitored at this site. TNRCC Study 





























Figure C16-1. Atlanta, GA Cancer Risk by Pollutant 



epuoiip |Au«A 

3U3|Am30J0m3IJi 

3U3|Al)l30JO|LjOBJJ3X 

|a^0!N 

spuomo 3U3|AlJ}3W 
886l-3P^M3P|BUJJOd 

uimtuojiio 

auEij}3UJOJO|qo 

ujjojojomo 

3puo|qoBJ}3i uoqiBQ 

uiniujpBO 

unojoiuojg 
ajnjnAjsg 
(A|UO) 3U3ZU3g 

dV9 

OjUSSJV 

886 L~ 3 PAt-|3p|Bjaov 
3U3!PB}ng-e‘l. 
3UBqj30J0|H3!(]-Z‘l 
3UBm3OJ0m0!Jl-3‘|.‘l 


3 UBm 3 OJO|q 0 Bj; 3 i- 2 ‘ 3 ‘ i.‘ i 




e 


o 

CL 


>jsu jaoueo atmjajji |enpiA;pu| 


C-93 


UATMP Study 
















































































Figure C16-2. Baton Rouge, LA Cancer Risk by Pollutant 



)\s\} jaoueo auiji0|i| |enp;A!pu| 


apjjomo |Au;a 


3U3|Alfl3OJO|l|0!Jl 

3U3|Am3OJO|lJ0BJJ31 

|3)(3!N 

spjjoiqo au3|AL|)3|AJ 

i 

886l-3pAMap|eiuJOj 

lie-spAqspieujJoj 

oinjiuojqo 

3uem3iuojo|ijo 

ujjojojoiho 

3P!JO|qoej}3i uoqjeo 

uimiupeo 

lUJOJOUlOJa 
lunjnAjsg 
(A|UO) 3U3ZU3Q 

dva 

0IU8SJV 

886l-3P*H9P|E]30V 
lie • 3pAi|3p|e;3ov 
3U3ipeing-e‘i 

3uei|j30Jomo!Q-3‘i 

3uem30JO|qoui-3‘i‘l 

3ueqi30J0|i|3ejj3i-3‘3‘ i 




£ 

EH 

< 


C-94 


Pollutant 


















































































Figure C16-3. Birmingham, AL Cancer Risk by Pollutant 



epuoiip |Au;a 

3U3|Alfl30J0|q3IJl 

3U3|A4J3OJO|l(0ejJ31 

|3*>!N 

apuomo 3U3|AL|J9W 
886l-9P^M3PietuJOj 

oinjiuoiLio 

3ueg)3uiojomo 

uuojojomo 

3puO|qOBJ}31 UOqjBQ 

luniuipeo 

wjojoiuojg 
tunniAjsg 
(A|uo) suszusg 

dva 

SjUSSJV 

886l-9pAqapie}33V 

3U3!pe;ng-e‘i. 

3uei|i30J0|q3!a-z‘i 

3UBqi30iO|q3iJi-2‘i‘t 


3UBqi30J0|q3BJ131-2‘2‘ i‘ i 


>> 

T3 

2 

-t-J 

CQ 

cu 

H 

< 

P 


c 

a: 


O 

CL 


C-95 
































































Figure C16-4. Burlington, VT Cancer Risk by Pollutant 




apuoiip |Au;a 

aua|Aifl30JO|ijO!ii 

3U3|Aqj30J0|M3BJ}31 

|3*>!N 

3PUON3 3U3|Al|}3|fl 
886 i-apAqapieuuo j 
uimujojqo 

3ueifl3ujojo|ijo 

tujojojomo 

3P!JOmOBJ}31 UOqjBQ 

uimtupBQ 

Lujofouiojg 
uininAjsg 
(A|UO) suazuag 

dva 

3jU3SJV 

886i.*epAq3p|Bi33V 
susjpBing-eH 
3UBqi30J0m3ia-3‘l 
3UBii;30J0|q3Uj.-2‘|.‘i. 
3UBm3OJ0|q3Bfl31-2‘3‘ l‘ l 


ro 

J3 

"o 

Q_ 


)jsu jsoueo 9UJ!iaj!| |enp;Aipu| 



C-96 


UATMP Study 










































































Figure Cl 6-5. Camden, NJ Cancer Risk by Pollutant 



in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

ill 

111 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

ill 

§ 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o> 

o 6 


<6 

in 

'tr 

CO 

csi 



>|S!J jaouBO auijidjji |enp;A;pu| 


apuoiqo |Au;a 

aua|AL|jaojo|L|OjJi 

aua|AqjaojomoBJ}ai 

|3)|0!N 

apijo^o aua|Ama|/\| 

lie-apAqapieuuoj 

lunjuiojgo 

auei^auiojomo 

uuojojoino 

apuoiqoejiai uoqjBQ 

tumtupBO 

imojoujojg 
iun;i|Ajag 
(A|uo) auazuag 


t 



dva 


omasiv 

lie • apAqap|B)aov 

auaipBing-c'i. 

auBmaojoiqoia-2‘1. 

auBqjaojo|qo!Ji-2‘i.‘l. 

auBmaoJO|i|OBj}ai-2‘2‘ i‘ i 



C-97 


, 

















































































Figure Cl 6-6. Cleveland, OH Cancer Risk by Pollutant 



apuoiqo |Au?a 

auaiAijisoJOiipul 

auaiAnjaojomoBJiai 

|9M0!N 

apjjoiqo auaiAqiaw 

8861-spAnapieiuJOd 

uinimojuo 

auBiflatuojomo 

uuojojomo 

ap|JO|L|OB431 uoqjBQ 

uinjUjpBO 

lujojomojg 
lunjnAjag 
(A|uo) auazuag 

dva 

omasjv 

886l-epAgap|Bjaov 
auajpBjng-e‘1. 
auBmaojoiqoja-2‘1. 
8UBi|;aojomo!Ji-2‘ i‘ i 
auBq;aoJO|qoBJjai-2‘3‘ i‘ |. 


tn 

to 

to 

to 

to 

to 

to 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

111 

111 

UJ 

§ 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

§ 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o> 

ad 

N 

<£> 

to 


cd 


to 

o 


o 

o 


y\su jaoueo 0Ui!J0|i| |enp;A;pu| 


C-98 


UATMP 

































































































Figure C16-7. Chicago, IL (C4IL) Cancer Risk by Pollutant 







J-VWS'V 


—— 


' • '• • •' 


m 

o 

• 

tu 

o 

o 


>fsu jaoueo aiu;)3j!| |enp|A;pu| 


apuo|L|o |Au;a 


3 U 9 |Alfl 3 OJO|H 0 jJJ_ 

3U3|At|J3OJ0|ipBJJ3J_ 

|3)|3!N 

apuomo 3U3|Ai(j3^( 
886 l-3pAM3p|BUiJ0 j 
||B-3PAL)3P|BUU0J 

ujniiuoJLio 


If 


— 


3UBlfl3UJOJO|lJ0 

uuojojomo 

3P!J0|l|3BJ13J. UOqjBQ 

UJnilUpBO 
uuojoiuojg 
iun;||Aj3g 
(A|UO) 3U3ZU3g 

dva 

3IU3SJV 

886l-9pAq3p|Bj30V 
lie - 9pAq3p|B;33V 
3U3!pBing-c‘i 
3UBifl30JO|qo!a-3‘i 
3UBl|)30J0|l|3!JX'3‘ l* L 


3UBlfl30i0m3BJ|31-S‘2‘ |.‘ l 


C-99 


UATMP Study 

































































































Figure Cl 6-8. Dallas, TX Cancer Risk by Pollutant 




■ 


' 

•• -s-. x n:^. : / .^v....: A j- A • •l-lw. 


rrr- 

■ ■ • .. •'. •.' 
'XviV', • tv 


. s > v • ^ > 

...,;; . 









- 

;i j'* x:> v ;-v<> <■ m* 






• 

. <v ' ' -f 

\V •-',>■ 

H!p 


in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

<n 

o 

p 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

til 

UJ 

o 

o 

§ 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

p 

in 

to 

p 

in 

p 

p 


co 

CO 

csi 

ci 

T-^ 


in 


)jsu jaoueo aun;aj!i |enp;A;pu| 


apuomo |Au;a 
3U3|Alfl30J0m3UJ. 
3U3|Am30JO|qoeJi3i 

|3>P!N 

3puO|L|3 3U3|Alfl3|fl 
886l' 9 P^M 3 Pl euJJO d 

||B-apAlJ3P|BUJJ0J 

uimwojijo 
3ueq)3iuojomo 
ujjoiojomo 
3P!J0|g3BJ}31 UOqJBQ 
ajnjtupBQ 

uuojowojg 
ain;i|Aj3g 
(A|UO) 3U3ZU3g 
dV9 
3jU3S.IV 

886 L-apAL|apiejaov 
lie - 3pAl|3p|BJ33V 
3U3ipB|ng-e‘t 
3UBqi30J0|q3ia-2‘|. 
3UBqi30J0m3!Jl-2‘l.‘l. 
3ueqj3OJ0|M3BJi3i-2‘3‘ i‘ i 


tz 

03 


o 

CL 



C-100 


UATMP Study 












































































































Figure Cl6-9. Dearborn, Ml Cancer Risk by Pollutant 




>fs;j jaouBo auniajii |enp!A;pu| 


apuomo |Xu;a 

auaiAqjeojomoui 

aua|Aqjaojo|ijoBJ}ai 

|3>P!N 

apjjo|L |3 auaiAipa^ 

886l-ap^M3PieiuJOj 

uinjtuojqo 

aueipaiuojomo 

ajJOjOJO|i|o 

apuomoejjai uoqjBQ 

lumwpBO 

uijoioiuojg 
lunuiAjag 
(A|uo) auazuag 

dva 

omasjv 

886l-3P^43P|B}aov 
auajpBing-s‘1. 
auEqiaoJO|M3!a-3‘i 
auBqiaojo|i|3Ui-2‘ 
auBinaojoin3BJiai-2‘z‘ i‘ i 


c 


o 

Q_ 



>> 

T3 

3 

+-> 

m 

Ph 

H 

o 


C-101 











































































Figure Cl6-10. Detroit, Ml Cancer Risk by Pollutant 



in 

m 

in 

in 

in 

in 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

ill 

UJ 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

p 

p 

p 

o 

to 

tf> 

■*r 

CO 

Csj 



>jsu jaoueo auniaj!! lenpiAjpui 


epuomo |Au;a 
suaiAqiaojomoui 
eua|Amaojomoej;3i 
|9>P!N 

apuoup aua|Aqiaw 
886 l*spAijap|euiJOd 



uinjujojqo 

aueqjaujojomo 

uuojojoimo 

apuomoejjai uoqjeo 

ajniiupEO 

uuojotuojg 


ujni||Ajag 
(A|uo) auazuag 



dV9 

ojuasjv 

886l-3pAi|ap|Biaov 
auaipEyig-e‘1. 
auEi|jaojo|qo!a-3 ‘l 
auEmaojo|ip!Ji-3‘i.‘l 
auBLRaoJoiqoEJiai- 2 ‘ 3 1 1 .‘ i. 



< 

£ 


Pollutant 











































































Figure Cl6-11. Fort Lauderdale, FL Cancer Risk by Pollutant 



lO 

in 

in 

in 

O 

o 

o 

o 

UJ 

LLl 

UJ 

UJ 

o 

O 

o 

o 

o 

O 

o 

o 

GO 

CO 


<vi 


>fsjj J90UB0 9Ui!^!| |enp!A!pu| 


epjjomo |Au;a 


lie - apAqapiejaov 
euaipeina-C‘ 1 . 

aueiflaoJoiijoia-3‘1 

euemaojonjoiii-j'i'l 

euemaojonioej}ai-2‘3‘ i‘ i 


eua|Ai4jaojo|go|Ji 


aua|AnjaoJO|ipej}ai 


la^oi.N 


apuoiip auaiA^aw 


lie-apAgapieuiioj 


ujmwojuo 


aueipaiuoioigo 


uuojojomo 


apijomoejjai uoqjeo 

c 

TO 

tuniuipeo 

"o 

Q_ 

uijojoujojg 


lunjnAjaa 


(A|uo) auazuaa 


dva 


oiuasjv 


C-103 


UATMP Study 




















































Figure C16-12. Hammond, IN Cancer Risk by Pollutant 



in 

IT) 

in 

in 

m 

in 

o 

O 

o 

o 

o 

o 

UJ 

III 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

Q 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 


CD 

in 


CO 

csi 


>fsu jdoueo auiiiaj!! lenpiAjpu; 


lO 

cp 

UJ 

CD 

O 

cri 


apiJO|ip |Au!A 
euaiAiflaojomoiJi 
aua|AmaojO|ijoeJiai 
|a*>!N 

apuomo auaiA^aw 

886 t-«pAL|ap|BUJJO j 

ainiuiojgo 

auBinaiuojomo 


uijoiojomo 


apuomoejjai uoqjeo 

tunjiupeo 

ujjoioujojg 


aini||Ajag 


(A|uo) auazuag 


oiuasjv 

886 L-epAqsp|B»eov 
auaipejng-eH 
aueioaoJoiMOi.a-2't 
euBijiaojoinoiJi-z'i'i, 
auEmeoJOinoBJiai-z^'i,'!. 


C-104 


UATMP Study 






































































































































Figure C16-13. Houston, TX (H1TX) Cancer Risk by Pollutant 



C-105 


UATMP Study 






























































Figure Cl 6-14. Jacksonville, FL Cancer Risk by Pollutant 



in 

to 

in 

in 

to 

to 

in 

in 

in 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

* 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

til 

UJ 

fjJ 

UJ 

UJ 

s 

CD 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

CD 

o 

CD 

o 

o 

o 

o 

CD 

o> 

CD 


CO 

to 


ro 

cv 



>jsu jaoueo aiuuaj!! |enpiAtpuj 


C-106 


UATMP Study 






















































































































Figure Cl6-15. Lansing, Ml Cancer Risk by Pollutant 



in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

o 

O 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

in 

o 

in 

o 

in 

o 

o 

*3* 

CO 

CO 

csi 

CNJ 



in 


>|su jaoueo aiujiajji |enp!A;pu| 


C-107 


UATMP Study 











































































Figure C16-16. Louisville, KY Cancer Risk by Pollutant 



apjjo|i|o |AU!A 


in 

tn 

tn 

in 

in 

in 

tn 

in 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

CD 

o 

CD 

CD 

o 

CD 

CD 

o 

o 

o 

CD 

CD 

o 

o 

CD 

CD 


00 


CO* 

tn 


CO 

04 


tn 

o 

■ 

LLl 

O 


>isij J03UBO auniajn |enpiA|puj 


gua|Aifleojo|MO!Ji 


uimnAjgg 


(A|uo) auazuag 


apuoiip aua|Aipaw 


886 i-apAL|ap|BUJJOd 


ujnjuiojgo 


eueiflaujojomo 


ujjojojomo 


apuomoEJjai uoqjeo 

tumtupBO 

ujjojomojg 


dV8 


omasjv 


886 |.-epAi|apieieo v 


aua|Aq)aoJO|qoEJjai 


ia>jO!N 


auai.pE;ng-£‘i 


auBiflaojomoiQ-2'i 


auBiijaojomo!Ji-3‘i.‘l 


auBqjaoiomoBJjai-z'j 1 1‘ t 


C-108 


UATMP Study 













































































































































Figure C16-17. Miami, FL Cancer Risk by Pollutant 



o 

LLi 

O 

CM 


in 

o 


)|su jaoueo euniajn |enp;A;pu| 


3piJO|LjO |AU!A 
eua|Aifl90JO|ijoui 
aua|Ai|iaojoiqoe.qai 
laijOjN 

apuoiqo au0|Aifl9^ 

886 l-3pAL|apieujJ0 j 
l|B-apAqap|E0JJ0j 
uimiuojqo 
aueqiauiojomo 

uuojojoimo 
apuoiqoEJiai uoqjeo 

c 

03 

lunrajpeo 

o 

a. 

ujjojoujojg 
tumiiAjag 
(A|uo) auazuag 
dV8 
omasjv 

886l*apAqap|eiaov 
lie - apAqapiejaov 
auaipejng-c'i. 
auemaojoiipiQ-2‘1 

auemaojoiqoui-z‘i‘1 

eueqiaoJO|qoeJiai-3‘2‘ i l i 


C-109 


UATMP Study 


































































Figure C16-18. Midland, Ml Cancer Risk by Pollutant 



in 

in 

in 

in 

m 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

LU 

LU 

o 

o 

o 

o 

O 

o 

o 

o 

o 

O 

ID 

in 


CO 

CSI 


>jsu jaoueo ouiiiajii jenpiAtpuj 


UT) 

O 

• 

tU 

o 

o 


9 uaipe}ng-E‘i. 

eueifleojomojo-3'i 

SUE4)9OJ0m0!Jl-2‘l‘l 

9UEqi9OJOm0BJiai-2‘3‘ i‘ i 


epuomo |Auia 

eu9|Aq}90JO|qoiJi 

9U9|Aqi90JO|qOEJ191 

|9>P!N 

apuoiqo auaiAiftaw 

886l-9P^M3P|EUiJOd 

lumwojqo 

9UBl09UJOJO|q0 

uijojojoiqo 

9P!J0|q3B49i uoqjBQ 

uiniujpBO 

ujjojoujojg 
uimnAjsg 
(A|uo) auazuag 

dV9 

ojuasjv 

886l*3P^aPI<naPV 


C-110 


UATMP Study 

















































































































Figure C16-19. Orlando, FL Cancer Risk by Pollutant 



epuoiip iAuia 


suaiAiflaojoin3j.il 


aua|AiflaoJO|i|3EJ}ai 


apjjomo aua|Aifla|/v 


lie-apAHapiEuuoj 


euEiflaujojoiHO 


ujjojojoiho 


TO 

apijomoBflai uoqjBO 

"o 

CL 


wjojoujojg 


(A|uo) suazuag 


l|B • apAgapiBiaov 


auajpEjng-e'i 


auBiflaojomojQ-j 1 1. 


auBn;aoJO|H3jJi-3‘i‘i. 


auEiflaoJO|H3BJ}ai-3‘2‘ j.‘ i 


in 

in 

in 

in 

o 

o 

o 

o 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

LLl 

o 

o 

o 

o 

§ 

o 

o 

CO 

CD 


csi 


>js;j J0OUBD aiuj^ji |enp;A;pu| 


C-lll 


UATMP Study 




















































Figure Cl6-20. Pensicola, FL Cancer Risk by Pollutant 



CO 

CO 

to 

to 

to 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

CO 

o 

in 

o 

to 

CO 

CO 

04 

04 

T” 


>jsu J03UBO aiuiiajji [enpiAjpui 




to 


epuomo |AujA 


9U9iAifl90J0iipi.il 


9U9|Aq}9OJ0|q0Bi}91 


|9>P!N 


epjioigo auaiAqpw 


IIB-epAippiBuuoj 


ujmuiojqo 


auemaiuojowo 


uiJOjOJomo 


apjjomoBjjai uoqiBQ 

lunjujpBO 

uuojouiojg 


ujni||Ajaa 


(A|uo) auazuag 


dVS 


0IU9SJV 

||B - 9pAq9p|B|90V 


9U9|pc;ng-e‘| 


9UBlfl90JOiqO!Q-2‘l 


9UBlU9OJ0|H0Ul-2‘|.‘I 


C-112 


UATMP Study 





























































































































Figure Cl6-21. Port Huron, Ml Cancer Risk by Pollutant 



ID 

LD 

in 

in 

in 

in 

to 

in 

O 

O 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

■ 

• 

ID 

UJ 

ID 

UJ 

ID 

ID 

UJ 

ID 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

O 

O 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

a> 

06 


CO 

in 

*3- 

CO 

04 


>isu jaoueo auina^n |enp;A;pu| 


epuoiqo |Au(a 
au3|Aijiaojo|ij3Ui 
3ue|Aq)aojomoei]3i 

epuomo 3U3|Aqj3^ 

886 l-spAqapieujJOj 
uimwojqo 

3ueipaujojo|qo 


tujojojoiqo 


3P!JO|q3BJ}31 uoqjBQ 

tumiupBO 

uuojowojg 
luninAjsg 
(A|UO) suszuag 

dV8 

3jU3S.IV 

886l-«pAq3p|Bj33V 

3U3!PByig-e‘i 

3UBlfl30J0|q3ia-3‘j. 

BUBqisojoiqsui-jH'l 

3UBl03OJO|q3BJJ31-2‘2‘ 1‘ I. 


C-113 


UATMP Study 






































































Figure Cl 6-22. Portland, OR Cancer Risk by Pollutant 



o 

• 

UJ 

o 

CO 


apjJO|ip |AujA 
3U3|Aqi30J0|q3UJ. 
su3|Aq}3OJ0|q3BJjai 
|MP!N 

spuoiqo 3U3 |Al|13W 

886l-9pAqap|Biiuod 

tunjujojqo 

3ueqi3tuojo|qo 

uijojoioiqo 

3P!J0|qDEJi3i uoqjeo 

wmiupBO 

uuojoujojg 

ujni||Ajea 

(AjUO) 3U3ZU3g 

dVS 

3JU3SJV 

886l-apAq9P|BJ33V 

3U3!peing-e‘i. 
3ueq;3OJ0|q3!a-2‘i 
3ueqi30J0|q3U i-2 'l‘ i 


3ueqi30J0|H3BJj3i-2‘2‘ i' [. 


■*3* 



in 

l/> 

CO 

ir> 

o 

O 

O 

o 

o 

o 

o 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 


CN 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

r— 



CO 

CO 


cvi 


>js;j J90UBO eui;^!| |enp;A;puf 


C-114 


UATMP Study 






















































































Figure Cl6-23. Port Neches, TX Cancer Risk by Pollutant 



co 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

<? 

<? 

<? 

<? 

s> 

9 

T 

Ill 

uu 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

Ui 

UI 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 


(£> 

in 


CO 

OJ 

' r ~ 


)jsjj jaoueo auijiajn |enpjAjpu| 


C-115 


UATMP Study 
























Figure Cl6-24. Sauget, IL Cancer Risk by Pollutant 



'.;V. • 




in 

LO 

in 

in 

o 

o 

o 

CD 

o 

CD 

UJ 

UJ 

ULi 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

o 

CD 

CD 

o 

o 

o 

CSI 

O 

CD 

o 

CD 

CD 


▼— 

CO 

CO 


ni 


o 

o 

+ 

UJ 

o 

o 

o 


>jsu jaouBD aui!;a|!i lenpjAjpui 


apuomo |Auia 
auaiAiflaojomouj. 
9ua|Amaoiomoefl3i 
laijOjN 

apuomo aua|Aiflaw 

886 i.-apAqap|BUJJO j 

lie-apAgap|BiuJoj 

lumiuojqo 

auBiflauiojomo 

iujo|ojomo 

apijO|ijOBJiai uoqjBQ 

ujn|ujpB0 

wjojowojg 

uinjnAjag 

(A|uo) auazuag 

dva 

omasjv 

886L-apAnap|Bjaov 
11 b - apAqap|Biaov 
auajpB;ng-0‘i 
auBiflaojo|L|0!Q-2‘i 
auBqjaojo|qoiJi-3‘i.‘i. 
auBq;aojomoBJ}ai-2‘2' i‘ j. 


< 


Pollutant 
































































































Figure Cl 6-25. St. Louis, MO Cancer Risk by Pollutant 



apjJO|ip |Au;a 

aueiAifl90J0iipj.il 

auaiAqiaojomoeflai 

|3)|0!N 

apjjomo auajAiflayy 

He-epAgepieuiJOj 

lunjiuojflo 

auBiflaiuojomo 

ujjo)Ojo|ijo 

apjJomoBJjai uoqjBQ 

uinjuipBO 

ujjojoiuojg 
uinjiiAjag 
(A|uo) euazuag 

dva 

ojuasjv 

l|B - epAqapiBjaov 
auajpBjng-c'i 
auBiflaojomoja-3‘i. 
auBfljaojomo!Ji-3‘i.‘|. 
auBiflaojo|ipBJ}ai-£‘3‘ j.‘ i. 


O 

o 


in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

LU 

LU 

UJ 

LU 

LU 

UJ 

LU 

LU 

o 

O 

O 

O 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

O 

o 

p 

p 

o 

CT> 

CO 


CD 

in 


CO 

c*i 


in 

o 

• 

LU 

O 

o 


o 

o 

+ 

LU 

o 

o 


>jsu jaoueo aujjjajji jenpjAjpui 


C-117 


UATMP Study 















































































Figure Cl 6-26. Toledo, OH Cancer Risk by Pollutant 



spuo|i|o |Au(a 

9U3|Am90J0|ip!Ji 

9U9|Am9OJ0|L|3EJJ9J. 

gpijoiqo 9U9|Aq;9^ 

||e-9pAq9p|euiJ0j 

9ueq)9iuoiomo 

uiJOiOJomo 

"c 

CO 

gpijoiqoejjgi uoqjeo j| 

■o 

Q_ 

UJJOJOWOjg 

(A|UO) 9U9ZU9Q 

lie - gpAqepiqgov 

9U9ipejna-C‘i. 

9ueqj90JO|qo!a-2‘i 

9ueqj90J0|q3Ui-2‘ j.' j. 


9uem90JO|qoeji9i-2‘2‘ i‘ i 


* 3 - 

^r 


in 

in 

in 

in 

O 

0 

O 

0 

0 

0 

0 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

O 

0 

O 

0 

0 

0 

0 

TT 

CVJ 

O 

0 

0 

0 

0 

T““ 


V" 

06 

CD 

rr 

csi 


O 

o 

*4~ 

LU 

CJ 

o 




>jsu J90UB0 euJ!i3i!| jenpiAipuj 


C-118 


UATMP Study 






































































Figure C16-27. Washington, DC Site #1 Cancer Risk by Pollutant 



Spuoiip |Au;a 

auaiAifldoJomoiJi 

0U3|Aij)aoJomoE^ai 

|35iO!N 

apuo|ip auaiAqia^ 


LO 


)\su J30UB0 auijiaj!! (enpiAipui 


lie-apAgapieaiJoj 


uiniujojqo 

aueiflaiuojomo 

tujojojomo 
apjjomoBJiai uoqjeo 
lunjuipEQ 

ujjojoujojg 
uim||Ajag 
(A|uo) auazuag 

dva 

omasjv 

II b - apAqapiBiaov 


auajpeing-c‘1. 


auBi|jaojO|ijO!a-2‘I 
auEqiaojowoui-zVi. 
auBiflaojom3EJjai-2‘3‘ i‘ | 


C-119 


UATMP Study 













































































Figure Cl6-28. Washington, DC Site #2 Cancer Risk by Pollutant 



—;—-- ——-——- — — -— . -:——— 

Wkv. V x'i- ->V' '"V ~ 

i|ap > $ t". ?*> v-' ^ ''' x? 


*T 


in 

in 

in 

in 

O 

O 

o o 

o 

o 

o 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

o 

o 

CD O 

CD 

o 

«z> 


CNJ 

O CD 

CD 

CD 

o 

▼— 


cd 

cd 

KT 

cvi 


o 

o 

4 - 

UJ 

O 

o 


y\su J90UB0 duijiej!! |enpiAipu| 


C-120 


UATMP Study 























































































Figure Cl 6-29. Wichita, KS Site #1 Cancer Risk by Pollutant 



in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

ULi 

UJ 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

p 


CD 

in 


CO 

csi 


>|su jaoueo auijiajji lenpjAjpuj 


C-121 


UATMP Study 


























































Figure Cl6-30. Wichita, KS Site #2 Cancer Risk by Pollutant 



in 

in 

in 

LO 

in 

in 

in 

in 

in 

CD 

o 

o 

o 

O 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

O 

UJ 

ill 

UJ 

LU 

UJ 

UJ 

UJ 

Ui 

UJ 

UJ 

o 

o 

o 

O 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

in 

o 

in 

o 

in 

o 

in 

o 

o 

in 



co 

CO 

oi 

CN4 


T- 

*n 


>jsu J0OUBO 3iu;;d}!| |enp;Aipu| 


C-122 


UATMP Study 




































































































«* 







4 




LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 


' 


0 010 735 409 8 




































































s 













■ 





























































































